Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 123

Thread: Curtis Penner

  1. #1
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,544

    Default Curtis Penner

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...851/story.html

    Oh for God's sake, can we get a credible mayoralty candidate?!! Curtis Penner was on CTV just now, and he's only got one item in his platform. All he could do is ramble on and on about surplus school spaces being redeveloped. He was pressed on other issues but he babbled on about nothing else.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  2. #2

    Default

    he's the co-owner of Meterra Developments... interesting. He's anti development unless it benefits his company?
    Also, people should learn the difference between dedicated green space, and reserve land. The land in question wasn't greenspaces, it was reserved school sites.

    And - please - if your only a one-small issue person, find a better place to voice your opinion, you don't run for mayor over one small issue.

  3. #3
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,393

    Default

    Yeah, I saw him this morning, and thought the same thing. Even when he was asked "what other issues are on his agenda", his response was about the green spaces again.

    I sure hope him and Diotte aren't the only two candidates for mayor, come Oct.

  4. #4
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,198

    Default

    One-issue mayoral candidates are par for the course especially early in the race. We had one in Saskatoon that ran on the platform of rubber sidewalks. They don't tend to spend much money so can afford to use the campaign as a chance for publicity.

    Eve

  5. #5
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,181

    Default

    The crazy thing is... he has more of a platform than Diotte does.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  6. #6
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,141
    Don't feed the trolls!

  7. #7
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,198

    Default

    ^ I wouldn't put much weight on that "report" myself. The person writing it doesn't seem to have much sense: needing a fast move and buying a suite under construction.

    Eve

  8. #8
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EveB View Post
    One-issue mayoral candidates are par for the course especially early in the race. We had one in Saskatoon that ran on the platform of rubber sidewalks. They don't tend to spend much money so can afford to use the campaign as a chance for publicity.

    Eve
    Hmmm, running on rubber sidewalks, eh? That'd put a spring in your step!
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  9. #9

    Default

    Folks, this is a good thing. He and Diotte can split the uninformed vote and a credible candidate will win.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MoneyGuy View Post
    Folks, this is a good thing. He and Diotte can split the uninformed vote and a credible candidate will win.
    Kinda what im hoping for?

    Although Don is still mum on what hes doing. Why the delay??
    FREE THE LOOPING .GIF MEMES
    youtube.com/GrimEmpire

  11. #11

    Default

    I thought Don wanted to try provincial politics? Maybe he's still weighing his choice. he certainly doesn't want to be a Councillor anymore.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...851/story.html

    Oh for God's sake, can we get a credible mayoralty candidate?!! Curtis Penner was on CTV just now, and he's only got one item in his platform. All he could do is ramble on and on about surplus school spaces being redeveloped. He was pressed on other issues but he babbled on about nothing else.
    So far I'm pretty sure I am the only credible mayoralty candidate. I certainly pressed the most important issue to me in this campaign, which is the loss of our green space. I will be issuing policy papers on every major aspect of current City of Edmonton policy, and the core foundation of my campaign is available at http://www.curtispenner.ca/platform.html

    Thanks for your interest

    Curtis

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    he's the co-owner of Meterra Developments... interesting. He's anti development unless it benefits his company?
    Also, people should learn the difference between dedicated green space, and reserve land. The land in question wasn't greenspaces, it was reserved school sites.

    And - please - if your only a one-small issue person, find a better place to voice your opinion, you don't run for mayor over one small issue.
    With respect, I'm anti-development of our Municipal Reserves. I wouldn't be in support of it if it was me developing it. I would not develop it. Ever. The point is that no-one has the right to develop it, including our City Council, who has decided to split hairs on the definition of "Municipal Reserve", which is clearly dedicated to schools or parks. If an MR is dedicated to schools or parks and it is not a school, then by logical implication it is a park. Further, on those sites that the city has already stolen and rezoned, they have not reinvested the proceeds from the sale of the MR lands in improving the parkland that is left. This is a violation of the Municipal Government Act and also a flagrant violation of City of Edmonton policy document C468.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MoneyGuy View Post
    Folks, this is a good thing. He and Diotte can split the uninformed vote and a credible candidate will win.
    What would an "informed candidate" run on?

    I'm informed enough to know that if we can't bring the Arena in on budget that we're in an awful lot of trouble financially. Even if we can, we are probably still in an awful lot of trouble. We've committed the infrastructure budget of a city with expansive and crumbling infrastructure to building a replacement building for one that is only one third through its useful lifespan, and being run by not for profit volunteers. I was more active on twitter in speaking out against it than probably anyone else in the city. But now that we have decided to build it, I am also probably more qualified than the rest of council combined, to see that it comes in on time and on budget. I understand large scale construction and project management intimately.
    Last edited by curtispenner; 06-06-2013 at 12:35 PM. Reason: Spelling mistake

  15. #15

    Default

    Curtispenner, thank you for joining C2E and engaging all of us in discussion.

    Could you kindly point me to a website where you have listed your platform, beyond "OMG there going to build on school sites that will never be used as school sites"

    if you don't have anything beyond that for a platform, you are a 1-issue candidate, which gives you the edge right this moment over the 0-issue candidate Kerry Diotte.

    If you were elected Mayor, how would you work to build consensus ? Remember, your vote is just one of 13. statements like " I am also probably more qualified than the rest of council combined, to see that it comes in on time and on budget. I understand large scale construction and project management intimately." are sure not the way to go about building relationships with the other councillors you will have to work with.

    What is your vision for the city? As a leader, you'll need a vision, not "I'm better than the rest, and vacant school sites should only be dandellion collectors, because I live near one elect me please"

    A leader of this city needs to be a visionary... one that looks to the future of Edmonton, not just a single issue....
    Last edited by Medwards; 05-06-2013 at 11:34 AM.

  16. #16

    Default Curtis Penner's Platform

    My first draft is available at:

    http://www.curtispenner.ca/platform.html

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottieA View Post
    Is this how one has experience coming in on budget and on time???

  18. #18

    Default

    I see an issue with your platform already. You've incorrect assumed that school sites are "parks"

    "SAVE OUR PARKS - Consult Edmontons on how they wish their Surplus School Sites dealt with and do it."

    Those aren't parks, they are school sites, they were never parks, and never intended as parks. Now the city is trying to make Edmonton stronger through infill developments like this.

    What exactly is your opposition to filling school sites (NOT PARKS) with a useful function? Live next door to it? Got confused with the word school site, thought it meant park?

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottieA View Post
    Is this how one has experience coming in on budget and on time???
    The owner of "The Ripoff Report" is a fellow named Ed Madegson and he is an extortionist. People can publish lies on this site, which Bernadine did, and the only way to have them corrected is to pay Ed an "Arbitration Fee" of $2,000. I refuse to pay an extortionist on principle. I will provide a blanked out copy of this buyers' contract showing that this woman did not purchase stainless steel appliances as she claims. She just demanded them, after moving into her unit and fumigating the ones in there with two packs per day of cigarette smoke, meaning I couldn't re-use the black appliances she had actually bought.

    This lady represented herself as her own Realtor, and so when she began making claims that she bought things that were not in her contract, I held back on paying her Realtor pending resolution of these claims. I would do the same thing with any realtor if their customer was indicating that they were owed something and getting into a dispute regarding the content of the contract that their Realtor drew up. Then, I discovered this un-removable batch of lies on The Ripoff Report.

    In short, this customer is either a lier, or her realtor is totally incompetent or both. It is magnified by the fact that the customer and her realtor are one in the same.

    National Home Warranty also dismissed her claim, and for good reason.

    Laugh it up, but hope for your sake that you don't end up getting smeared on Ed Madegson's pay-to-correct-defamation platform...because you're at the mercy of his extortion and Google's "Humiliation Algorithm" if you do end up there.
    Last edited by curtispenner; 05-06-2013 at 12:51 PM.

  20. #20

    Default

    ok fair enough, i wont labour that point further.

    which parks is that you want to save? I see that former school sites (that were never called parks) are being developed... but I dont see any parks being developed...

  21. #21

    Default

    You made an assertion that you probably more qualified than the rest of council combined on things like budget and project times... How do you think the rest of your potential colleagues would say to that? Do you consider yourself as the only one that is qualified to be on council? Does the rest of the city administration not do anything? Do you feel that to be on council you should have the same background you do?
    On your website, you "considers his lack of political experience an asset in this race, as he hasn't been bought and will not be." Could you go on about that? What exactly to you mean by that? I'm confused, and before I comment further, I would like clarification.

    If elected mayor, what changes would you like to see for Edmonton? What would be some of your legacy projects? If you served a term, what would you want people to look back on your term(s) and say about yourself as mayor? What ideas do you have for growing Edmonton?

    one point I disagree with on your platform is you say city staffers have grown by at twice the rate of the population. Do you consider that maybe the city is recovering from a low in the last 90s? You also identify that you want potholes filled. The city has now filled closed to 400,000 potholes in this season alone to date. A record. You've identified that you would put more money into road maintenance, but who do you think does that? Its the same staffers you want to eliminate...

    And one further question at this time if I may, how did you come across C2E and this thread? I noticed your account is fresh and new as of this month? Have you been a long time follower? Or perhaps, you've posted under another nick? This website does have quite a legacy...
    Last edited by Medwards; 05-06-2013 at 12:03 PM.

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I see an issue with your platform already. You've incorrect assumed that school sites are "parks"

    "SAVE OUR PARKS - Consult Edmontons on how they wish their Surplus School Sites dealt with and do it."

    Those aren't parks, they are school sites, they were never parks, and never intended as parks. Now the city is trying to make Edmonton stronger through infill developments like this.

    What exactly is your opposition to filling school sites (NOT PARKS) with a useful function? Live next door to it? Got confused with the word school site, thought it meant park?
    To quote directly from the Municipal Government Act:

    "Municipal reserve, school reserve, or municipal and school reserve may be used by a municipality or school board or by them jointly only for any or all of the following purposes:

    (a) a public park;
    (b) a public recreation area;
    (c) school board purposes
    (d) to separate areas of land that are used for different purposes."

    Notwithstanding the strong law supporting using these lands and/or the funds from the sale thereof for only the above purposes, EDMONTONIANS WANT TO USE THEM AS PARKS! I will not debate with you further on this topic. You sound like Mandel, speaking down to everyone and saying that regardless of nearly 100% of people wanting them used for (a) or (b) above, we should just accept having them built on and shut up. We will not back down on this issue.

    There are a whole bunch of communities with closed and abandoned schools on them, real actual abandoned "Building envelopes", with Community Leagues begging the city to help them remediate those sites and build Seniors housing on them. Fulton Place is one of many examples. Gavin Martinson and his Community League have been begging the city for over two years to turn their empty rotting building into a seniors project. Another excellent infill opportunity is Petrolia Mall, which Michael Walters has been working tirelessly to turn from an abandoned unlit drug-dealing haven of cracked and rotting asphalt into a revitalized mixed use development. There are tons of opportunities in the city without needing to dig up greenspaces with soccer fields and baseball diamonds and mature trees and pathways on them.
    Last edited by curtispenner; 05-06-2013 at 12:13 PM.

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    how did you come across C2E and this thread? I noticed your account is fresh and new as of this month? Have you been a long time follower? Or perhaps, you've posted under another nick? This website does have quite a legacy...
    I love C2E. Best online community with respect to zoning issues and urban design in Edmonton bar none IMO. I think I remember posting before but I couldn't remember my login or password, so I checked "curtispenner" and it was available

  24. #24

    Default

    If you wont debate further with me on this topic, I'm not sure how well your future as a city leader holds. I sound like Mandel... nice.

    I'll continue to ask you questions, you can choose to respond. According to your linkedin profile, you state as a job description for Metterra as a builder/developer "I build condos. I know lots and lots of things about condos. I love high technology, and want to put more of that into condos. I think we should be building up and not out...and that's probably because I live in Edmonton, Alberta, which boasts some of the greatest urban sprawl in North America."

    Doesn't this kinda... go against what your #1 point on your platform is? "Save our school sites"

    I'm not upto speed on the Fulton Place situation, but Petrolia Mall is not a school site, and the city can't really do much as they are not the owner of the Mall.

    I also would like you to cite " EDMONTONIANS WANT TO USE THEM AS PARKS " if you don't mind. Especially in the 100% range.

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    If you wont debate further with me on this topic, I'm not sure how well your future as a city leader holds. I sound like Mandel... nice.

    I'll continue to ask you questions, you can choose to respond. According to your linkedin profile, you state as a job description for Metterra as a builder/developer "I build condos. I know lots and lots of things about condos. I love high technology, and want to put more of that into condos. I think we should be building up and not out...and that's probably because I live in Edmonton, Alberta, which boasts some of the greatest urban sprawl in North America."

    Doesn't this kinda... go against what your #1 point on your platform is? "Save our school sites"

    I'm not upto speed on the Fulton Place situation, but Petrolia Mall is not a school site, and the city can't really do much as they are not the owner of the Mall.

    I also would like you to cite " EDMONTONIANS WANT TO USE THEM AS PARKS " if you don't mind. Especially in the 100% range.
    We don't need to sacrifice our parks to build up and not out. New York isn't building on Central Park, despite having a more pronounced issue with population density than Edmonton. Under the Capital Region Board's Growth Plan, dated October 2009, the density in many of Edmonton's mature neighbourhoods will be doubling to 30-45+ dwelling units/net residential hectare. This doubling is also a doubling of the reason that we need to maintain our parks. I think it would be stupid to put Condominiums on Central Park in New York, and I think it would be stupid to put Condominiums on Municipal Reserve lands in Edmonton.

    With respect to your request for a citation on the "100%" number, that was the number of hands of Skyrattler residents attending a packed meeting in Blue Quill Community League that raised their hands in support of using their Municipal Reserve land as green space. Don Iveson and Bryan Anderson attended.

    If you'd like a live demonstration of how many citizens stand behind keeping their greenspace, you should come out to the Ermineskin Community League AGM on Tuesday June 11. Now that a bunch of people who thought their park was sacrosanct have found out it is being sold, they will come out and, I predict, support keeping it as green space with 100% unanimity. This is just a prediction...but I'm no prophet...just a concerned citizen. Maybe I'm wrong. Come see for yourself!
    Last edited by curtispenner; 05-06-2013 at 12:32 PM.

  26. #26

    Default

    I'd like to ask Curtis a question: What makes you think you have a chance in an election for mayor? You're taking on incumbents with name recognition, a team of workers and experience and no one knows who you are. You have 4.5 months to get 'er done.

    I ask because I often wonder what makes think these no-name candidates have a shot and why they bother. Why not run as a councillor? There you might have a chance.

  27. #27

    Default

    School sites are hardly "Central Park". Edmonton is home to the biggest urban park in north america, the river valley. That's our Central Park.

    Many of these former potential school sites already have additional park land and reserves right beside them that are not included with the redevelopment of the former potential school sites.

    I understand that there are many that are oppose to the school sites being redeveloped, but you'll have that with any project anywhere. I'm sure as a developer/builder, you've certainly seen your share of people who oppose your developments for this reason or that. People oppose the Henday being build because they thought it was not going to be developed, and when they started to build it they were upset too. I'm also sure that some people would be oppose to them building schools at these school sites too, because they also thought it would be a park. Save our Parks... kinda misleading.

    I wont be attending the AGM, though I do appreciate your invite. I'm sure there will be many foaming at the mouth that their "school site" behind their house is now being developed for some reason or another... ignoring the plenty of park space that isn't being touched adjacent or near by to those school sites
    Last edited by Medwards; 05-06-2013 at 12:36 PM.

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I'm not upto speed on the Fulton Place situation, but Petrolia Mall is not a school site, and the city can't really do much as they are not the owner of the Mall.
    The city can do a lot to influence decisions and land uses in areas it does not own. The city does not own your lawn but it can force you to mow it, for example. Good land use policy does not require that the city own everything. Also, the city does not own our Municipal Reserve sites. We do, and they are the trustee of them. They are failing miserably in this capacity at the moment.

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MoneyGuy View Post
    I'd like to ask Curtis a question: What makes you think you have a chance in an election for mayor? You're taking on incumbents with name recognition, a team of workers and experience and no one knows who you are. You have 4.5 months to get 'er done.

    I ask because I often wonder what makes think these no-name candidates have a shot and why they bother. Why not run as a councillor? There you might have a chance.
    I don't need to "have a chance" to serve my community. I'm simply serving it. If I'm not elected, I still did my best to save our greenspaces...and perhaps I'll sway some votes for different councillors or help move the council policy towards one of honouring their position as trustees and custodians of our Municipal Reserves, in which case I've accomplished the first plank of my platform. I'm not running as a councillor because the Municipal Reserve sites that the city is expropriating outside of law are everywhere throughout Edmonton. This issue is not unique to my ward. It is happening in every ward. It impacts every Edmontonian that appreciates being able to take a walk through their community park or watch their children play soccer and baseball, or who like playing Ultimate, or who bought a house with a view of the park under the belief that this view would never change except if a school needed to be built there, as stipulated in the Municipal Government Act.
    Last edited by curtispenner; 05-06-2013 at 12:59 PM.

  30. #30
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,229

    Default

    Curtis, thanks for taking the time to post on this site. I have a question for you:

    As an inner city resident, I have seen established neighborhood schools shut down, while new schools are being built on the outskirts of the city. It seems that there is a disconnect between the city, which is trying to encourage density in extisting established neighborhoods, and the school board, which seems to be capitulating to the demands of residents of new suburbs to build new schools. What is your position on the preservation and promotion of existing schools ?
    Parkdale

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    Curtis, thanks for taking the time to post on this site. I have a question for you:

    As an inner city resident, I have seen established neighborhood schools shut down, while new schools are being built on the outskirts of the city. It seems that there is a disconnect between the city, which is trying to encourage density in extisting established neighborhoods, and the school board, which seems to be capitulating to the demands of residents of new suburbs to build new schools. What is your position on the preservation and promotion of existing schools ?
    This is a good question! I have to admit that I don't have a concrete answer on this. It's compounded by the fact that the affordable housing is typically in the outskirts as well, and new families often need affordable housing. The only half decent answer I can come up with would be to prioritize "specialty" programs such as French Immersion or Chinese Immersion or sports focused programs etc. in existing schools with dropping attendance, and bussing the kids whose parents are already willing to bus their children out of their local neighbourhoods for these programs into the established schools with dropping numbers. What are your thoughts on this?
    Last edited by curtispenner; 05-06-2013 at 11:36 PM.

  32. #32

    Default

    Curtis, you do know that the mayor has no more decision-making authority than a councillor does, right?

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MoneyGuy View Post
    Curtis, you do know that the mayor has no more decision-making authority than a councillor does, right?
    Yes of course. Just one vote. But I would do my upmost to serve the Edmonton public with that vote, and with 100% of my efforts as mayor.

  34. #34
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    183

    Default

    Mr. Penner,

    Thank you for braving this community in order to respond to questions that have arisen regarding your mayoral platform. This site can be pretty hostile at times. Kudos on your fortitude.

    I would like to know your opinion of the current southeast to west LRT plan. I have reviewed your platform page, and there is no mention of this subject.
    Do you support LRT and mass transit development in this city?
    Specifically, do you support the current vision for the SELRT as it is now being presented to the members of the communities that it is meant to serve?
    Would you vote in favor of proceeding with this LRT project?
    Would you be at all interested in working to accelerate the development of this LRT project?

    Thank you for your time.
    Non semper erit aestas

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkwalker View Post
    Mr. Penner,

    Thank you for braving this community in order to respond to questions that have arisen regarding your mayoral platform. This site can be pretty hostile at times. Kudos on your fortitude.

    I would like to know your opinion of the current southeast to west LRT plan. I have reviewed your platform page, and there is no mention of this subject.
    Do you support LRT and mass transit development in this city?
    Specifically, do you support the current vision for the SELRT as it is now being presented to the members of the communities that it is meant to serve?
    Would you vote in favor of proceeding with this LRT project?
    Would you be at all interested in working to accelerate the development of this LRT project?

    Thank you for your time.
    Thank you for taking the time to post as well! If there is anything that I would be willing to consider entering into further debt to finance, it would be the SE and West LRT expansions. I very much wish that the $541,000,000 of debt we will be taking on to build a second arena could have been deployed to these two LRT lines instead. I do consider transit and transit oriented development to be a key in our ability to build up instead of out moving forwards.

    Century Park originally had a lot of vision. I am very disappointed with how it turned out, and the fact that very few of the promises Procura made to the City of Edmonton were kept. The City appears to have made no provisions for recourse back to Procura for failing to meet its end of the deal, after the City met its end of the bargain by bringing the SW LRT extension in. Now it seems the issue is simply being dropped by council.

    I do not know why the City made no provisions for an LRT Park and Ride, (we now lease it from Century Park) and there appears to have been no plan for Seniors Housing immediately adjacent to the station, which is where it obviously belongs.

    I will issue a policy statement on affordable housing and seniors housing and how both need to tie into a unified TOD strategy in the coming days. One shouldn't be cutting the legs out from the City's existing strategy on these issues without proposing an alternate solution, afterall :P

    Curtis

  36. #36
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,544

    Default

    OK Curtis - sorry for my initial hostility though I still think you didn't cast a favorable first impression on CTVML. If you are willing to discuss a more substantial platform, I can certainly hear you out.

    1. Edmonton has no problem getting blue collar workers, academic personnel and medical professionals here...but what your ideas re: attracting and retaining head offices? Or attracting and retaining white collar professionals? Students? Creative people? Immigrants?

    2. What are your ideas re: marketing Edmonton to corporations, professionals, students, consulates and tourists?

    3. Any ideas on how to make the municipal government run more efficiently?

    4. What would be your long-term vision of the city...i.e. what would you like the city to look like in 20 or 30 years time?

    5. What are your thoughts, views, etc on revitalization/development of downtown, The Quarters, Blatchford field?

    6. What would you like to see happen with regional governance? with provincial and federal government relations with the city?

    7. Balancing fiscal responsibility with big-ticket projects such as the arena and Walterdale Bridge replacement is always a challenge. How would you strike this balance?
    Last edited by Sonic Death Monkey; 05-06-2013 at 08:18 PM.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  37. #37
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,484

    Default

    Curtis.... putting green spaces aside for now, what is your real visionary for this city of Edmonton as the first year as a mayor, if you have won election on this Oct ???
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    OK Curtis - sorry for my initial hostility though I still think you didn't cast a favorable first impression on CTVML. If you are willing to discuss a more substantial platform, I can certainly hear you out.

    1. Edmonton has no problem getting blue collar workers, academic personnel and medical professionals here...but what your ideas re: attracting and retaining head offices? Or attracting and retaining white collar professionals? Students? Creative people? Immigrants?

    2. What are your ideas re: marketing Edmonton to corporations, professionals, students, consulates and tourists?

    3. Any ideas on how to make the municipal government run more efficiently?

    4. What would be your long-term vision of the city...i.e. what would you like the city to look like in 20 or 30 years time?

    5. What are your thoughts, views, etc on revitalization/development of downtown, The Quarters, Blatchford field?

    6. What would you like to see happen with regional governance? with provincial and federal government relations with the city?

    7. Balancing fiscal responsibility with big-ticket projects such as the arena and Walterdale Bridge replacement is always a challenge. How would you strike this balance?
    1. We already attract a lot of fantastic students. The U of A has a world class medical program, and having graduated from it, I think the Philosophy program is quite excellent as well We are also an extremely vibrant hub for the arts, in which some of the most creative people I know are working in Edmonton already. Head offices and white collar professionals are tied together. I didn't know how to answer on how to attract head offices so I googled it and found this excellent report by Calgary Economic Development. It mentions tax advantages, where we could definitely use some work, excellent infrastructure, where we could again use some work, an innovative environment, and proximity of high quality business, financial, creative and consulting service providers. Since Calgary has us beat in this department I suppose we need to ask ourselves why and start working on fixing the areas where we are lacking in comparison.

    The top four things CEO's look for in a head office location are corporate tax advantages, qualified managers, quality of life, and central location, in that order. A beneficial tax regime would in my opinion solve three of the four. We want a reinvigorated Downtown. An easy way to do that would be to reduce the taxes on small businesses and perhaps consider rent incentives etc. in order to lure them in. That would make downtown less dead, and create "quality of life" in our most central location. Qualified managers I think we already have. Most of our university graduates are working in under-qualified jobs, and I think they would thrive and show their stripes in a reinvigorated downtown.

    2. I've pretty much answered in my response to 1...with the exception of tourism for which I must admit that have no idea how we can increase it. Thoughts on this everyone?

    3. Bureaucracies are inefficient. To me the best ways to make them operate more efficiently are to keep them as small as possible. ATB Financial is a good example of an Edmonton based Crown corporation that we could learn from in terms of best practices, and they are headquartered here in Edmonton. I would start by consulting with Dave Mowat and Jim McKillop on the strategies that worked in making ATB run as well as it does.

    4. I would love for Edmonton to be a vibrant, thriving economy in which we support local businesses, buy food from local producers, have a very well developed mass transit system and have fostered enough innovation and business excellence that our economy doesn't depend on the price of a barrel of oil. I think we should be fostering more business parks like the Edmonton Research Park in SW Edmonton east of South Common....but have an admittance bar that is a little lower. It's very hard to get into the Research Park. I had a great experience founding a .com venture in the Calgary Research Park and the low cost and shared resources were a huge help to us as a startup.

    5. As I said in 1., I strongly believe that the revitalization of our downtown will depend largely on tax incentives and perhaps rent subsidies for small businesses initially.

    6. What do you mean by regional governance? Are you referring to the Capital Region Board? I'm a libertarian and am not a huge fan of "governance" over my affairs, and I'd have the same viewpoint with respect to some region's governance over our City. In terms of our relationship to the province, I think we need to figure out how to realize some benefit from the fact that the "Capital Region" derives so much benefit from Edmonton and yet we are not able to collect taxes from them for their use of our crumbling infrastructure. I'm sure there's a solution, but am at a loss for what it is.

    7. Bridges are critical infrastructure. If one needs to be repaired or replaced then you must do it immediately and then immediately pay for it, like a condominium would pay for a critical repair by doing a special assessment. As far as big ticket projects go, I have stated many times that I would not have built a second arena. I think the money would have been much better spent in building out the SE and West LRT extensions. To be frank, we will have more fiscal responsibility and less big ticket projects if I am elected Mayor, so that perhaps we will be in the financial shape to undertake some more big ticket items down the road. Right now our plate is full. But if I could pick one, it would be the LRT.
    Last edited by curtispenner; 05-06-2013 at 09:53 PM.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    Curtis.... putting green spaces aside for now, what is your real visionary for this city of Edmonton as the first year as a mayor, if you have won election on this Oct ???
    In my first year I would ROCK THE ARENA PROJECT. Since we are committed to it let's make it kick butt, and on time and on budget!

    I would also of course work on trying to figure out a way for the Coliseum (which I suspect will lose Rexall as a sponsor) to maintain profitability. I really think it is a shame we didn't just keep using Rexall. It was built to a 100 year Spec and is only 1/3 through its useful lifespan. New York is using Yankee Stadium #1 for little leagues, I'm quite sure at a horrible loss. We don't want that to happen to the Coliseum.

    Addition: June 6, 2013, 12:44 PM

    By the way everyone, let's all put some pressure on Katz group to stop bullying Northlands! They are a not-for-profit volunteer organization for goodness sakes! The ink isn't even dry on the Arena deal and Katz group is already undercutting our community's ability to earn profits and re-invest them in our own assets and events? This is lunacy: http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/65...ds-contractor/
    Last edited by curtispenner; 06-06-2013 at 12:44 PM. Reason: Addition

  40. #40

    Default

    Curtis, if you're running for public office, I'd recommend you brush up on your spelling and grammar. (Others whom are not, dmb for example, carry on).

    Edmonton Coliseum, not "Colosseum"

    And "aweful" has no "e" - unless you really mean "full of awe."

  41. #41

    Default

    Thanks, I've corrected them. I'm afraid spelling and grammar were not on my list of strengths in junior high school and I've come to rely on spell-check. Appreciate the heads up, and though it will be much lower on my list than saving our green-spaces, I will endeavour to improve.

  42. #42

    Default

    Save our green spaces? You mean reserve land for school sites... They were never designated as greenspaces!!! or parks!!! If they were developed into schools, your greenspaces would be gone too, as there would be a school there.

    How long will this campaign of mis-information continue?

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Save our green spaces? You mean reserve land for school sites... They were never designated as greenspaces!!! or parks!!! If they were developed into schools, your greenspaces would be gone too, as there would be a school there.

    How long will this campaign of mis-information continue?
    They were designated as Municipal Reserve, which can only be used for schools or parks. Since they are not used for schools they can only be used for parks. Alternately if they are disposed the proceeds must be used for schools or improving parks. Since there are no schools on these sites, the only legal use of the funds would be to improve parks. The funds are not being reinvested in our parks, however. In fact, none of us knows where the funds are going because the City of Edmonton has not issued an annual report showing showing the financial activities of the mandated "Reserve Account" for "all monies paid to the city from the sale of Reserve Land located in areas containing a residential component and all monies paid to the City in place of Reserve Land dedication in areas containing a residential component, as contemplated in the Municipal Government Act." This is quoted from Section 12 of the Joint Use Agreement: Land, 2009, to which the City is a signatory. It looks like the City is instead trying to sell the lands and run, and they are hoping that no-one will notice where the money goes. This is illegal. And I will make sure that everyone notices.

    Do you work for the City of Edmonton Medwards? It sure feels like it from the tone of your posts.
    Last edited by curtispenner; 06-06-2013 at 01:34 PM.

  44. #44

    Default

    ^
    In addition to watching your spelling, you should also be careful of your punctuation. I know I've let myself right many a run-on sentence, too, but you have to be particularly careful of that when running for office. Splitting up a sentence will allow your message to come through more clearly and professionally.

  45. #45

    Default

    Thanks! I re-read my last post and noticed a real doozie in the quote from the Reserve Account provisions of the Joint Use Agreement. I made some edits to add periods.

  46. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curtispenner View Post
    Do you work for the City of Edmonton Medwards? It sure feels like it from the tone of your posts.
    Do I work for the City of Edmonton? The answer is none of your business, and irrelevant to my positions and opinions on this website. But if you must know, I have never worked for the City of Edmonton in any capacity as an employee, or contractor, or even as a volunteer. I have no connection to any current, future or previous Councillors or mayors. Do I work for the City of Edmonton? Is this how you are going to re-act anytime someone has a different opinion to yours? And believe me, you definitely do not have 100% consensus of the city, like you said earlier and have not been able to provide any sort of fact/citation to back your assertion.
    I do however support a city growing stronger through infill developments like this that your opposed to. Edmonton has one of the biggest sprawl of any city in north america, and removing a few unused school sites isn't going to change the look and feel of these neighbourhoods. It will add more people to neighbourhoods, reducing the costs for the city to provide services from road way maintenance, sewers, to emergency coverage.
    For too long, strong-armed Nimby-like community groups have kept this city as an inefficient service provider, always balking when any development comes near. This is no different. It's a knee jerk nimby reaction that you're platforming to be mayor on, and the extra platforms you've only very recently tacked on are merely just to attempt to seem like you actually have any other care either then whats developing in your own backyard...
    Your 15 minutes will quickly and quietly pass.
    Last edited by Medwards; 06-06-2013 at 01:45 PM.

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by curtispenner View Post
    Do you work for the City of Edmonton Medwards? It sure feels like it from the tone of your posts.
    Do I work for the City of Edmonton? The answer is none of your business, and irrelevant to my positions and opinions on this website. But if you must know, I have never worked for the City of Edmonton in any capacity as an employee, or contractor, or even as a volunteer. I have no connection to any current, future or previous Councillors or mayors. Do I work for the City of Edmonton? Is this how you are going to re-act anytime someone has a different opinion to yours?
    If you were working in Sustainable Development or something like this it would obviously be relevant. Since you are not that's fantastic. We can continue to duke it out BTW though, only 40 or so of your last 250 posts have been outside work hours....so 84% of your activity on C2E in the past 250 posts have been during work. If you were working for me I'd be disappointed, unless it is your job to be on this forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    And believe me, you definitely do not have 100% consensus of the city, like you said earlier and have not been able to provide any sort of fact/citation to back your assertion.
    I answered this yesterday at 12:28 PM. I'll just cut and paste what I said again for clarity.

    On June 5, 2013, at 12:38 PM curtispenner wrote:

    With respect to your request for a citation on the "100%" number, that was the number of hands of Skyrattler residents attending a packed meeting in Blue Quill Community League that raised their hands in support of using their Municipal Reserve land as green space. Don Iveson and Bryan Anderson attended.

    If you'd like a live demonstration of how many citizens stand behind keeping their greenspace, you should come out to the Ermineskin Community League AGM on Tuesday June 11. Now that a bunch of people who thought their park was sacrosanct have found out it is being sold, they will come out and, I predict, support keeping it as green space with 100% unanimity. This is just a prediction...but I'm no prophet...just a concerned citizen. Maybe I'm wrong. Come see for yourself!

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I do however support a city growing stronger through infill developments like this that your opposed to.
    I am not opposed to growing stronger through infill developments. I'll quote again from what I already said on this.

    On June 5, 2013 at 12:06 PM curtispenner wrote:

    There are a whole bunch of communities with closed and abandoned schools on them, real actual abandoned "Building envelopes", with Community Leagues begging the city to help them remediate those sites and build Seniors housing on them. Fulton Place is one of many examples. Gavin Martinson and his Community League have been begging the city for over two years to turn their empty rotting building into a seniors project. Another excellent infill opportunity is Petrolia Mall, which Michael Walters has been working tirelessly to turn from an abandoned unlit drug-dealing haven of cracked and rotting asphalt into a revitalized mixed use development. There are tons of opportunities in the city without needing to dig up greenspaces with soccer fields and baseball diamonds and mature trees and pathways on them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Edmonton has one of the biggest sprawl of any city in north america, and removing a few unused school sites isn't going to change the look and feel of these neighbourhoods. It will add more people to neighbourhoods, reducing the costs for the city to provide services from road way maintenance, sewers, to emergency coverage.
    These sites are not unused. They are used as parks. Here is a video of me standing in one actively used as a park, discussing using good infill sites like the ones I've already mentioned instead of using our soccer fields, baseball diamonds, and green spaces with pathways and mature trees on them. Take note of the dozens of children playing and their families, most of whom have no idea that their soccer pitch will soon be stolen outside of law.

    http://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/video?cli...ylistPageNum=4

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    For too long, strong-armed Nimby-like community groups have kept this city as an inefficient service provider, always balking when any development comes near. This is no different. It's a knee jerk nimby reaction that you're platforming to be mayor on, and the extra platforms you've only very recently tacked on are merely just to attempt to seem like you actually have any other care either then whats developing in your own backyard...
    We are not Nimby's, and this is no knee-jerk. When my community discovered the sale of our greenspace, it became my obligation as our Community League President to look into it, and I discovered that the City has been involved in ripping off community after community over the past six years, exhausting countless volunteers who wanted nothing other than a place for their children to play, as was promised to them by the Alberta Government in the Municipal Government Act. You have not replied with any good legal argument for expropriating these sites other than to call those who are lined up to do something about it names. You don't want to attend a community meeting in Ermineskin. Why don't you come out and call everyone who shows up Nimby's? Come on down! Get up from the computer, and we can take a walk through some of these "unused" sites together!
    Last edited by curtispenner; 06-06-2013 at 02:31 PM.

  48. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curtispenner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by curtispenner View Post
    Do you work for the City of Edmonton Medwards? It sure feels like it from the tone of your posts.
    Do I work for the City of Edmonton? The answer is none of your business, and irrelevant to my positions and opinions on this website. But if you must know, I have never worked for the City of Edmonton in any capacity as an employee, or contractor, or even as a volunteer. I have no connection to any current, future or previous Councillors or mayors. Do I work for the City of Edmonton? Is this how you are going to re-act anytime someone has a different opinion to yours?
    If you were working in Sustainable Development or something like this it would obviously be relevant. Since you are not that's fantastic. We can continue to duke it out BTW though, only 40 or so of your last 250 posts have been outside work hours....so 84% of your activity on C2E in the past 250 posts have been during work. If you were working for me I'd be disappointed, unless it is your job to be on this forum.
    I work in IT... I spent a lot of time waiting for computers to do things. This fills some of the void. As an IT person, once I'm out of the office, its rare for me to touch a computer again until back in the office... you kinda get sick of computers working on them all day. Thanks for looking into my stats. Perhaps you'll poke around to a few more places in C2E now too, and realize that a mayors responsibility in a city is a lot more than just a few former school sites.

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    And believe me, you definitely do not have 100% consensus of the city, like you said earlier and have not been able to provide any sort of fact/citation to back your assertion.
    I answered this yesterday at 12:28 PM. I'll just cut and paste what I said again for clarity.

    On June 5, 2013, at 12:38 PM curtispenner wrote:

    With respect to your request for a citation on the "100%" number, that was the number of hands of Skyrattler residents attending a packed meeting in Blue Quill Community League that raised their hands in support of using their Municipal Reserve land as green space. Don Iveson and Bryan Anderson attended.

    If you'd like a live demonstration of how many citizens stand behind keeping their greenspace, you should come out to the Ermineskin Community League AGM on Tuesday June 11. Now that a bunch of people who thought their park was sacrosanct have found out it is being sold, they will come out and, I predict, support keeping it as green space with 100% unanimity. This is just a prediction...but I'm no prophet...just a concerned citizen. Maybe I'm wrong. Come see for yourself!
    and that hardly shows consensus of a city...

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I do however support a city growing stronger through infill developments like this that your opposed to.
    I am not opposed to growing stronger through infill developments. I'll quote again from what I already said on this.

    On June 5, 2013 at 12:06 PM curtispenner wrote:

    There are a whole bunch of communities with closed and abandoned schools on them, real actual abandoned "Building envelopes", with Community Leagues begging the city to help them remediate those sites and build Seniors housing on them. Fulton Place is one of many examples. Gavin Martinson and his Community League have been begging the city for over two years to turn their empty rotting building into a seniors project. Another excellent infill opportunity is Petrolia Mall, which Michael Walters has been working tirelessly to turn from an abandoned unlit drug-dealing haven of cracked and rotting asphalt into a revitalized mixed use development. There are tons of opportunities in the city without needing to dig up greenspaces with soccer fields and baseball diamonds and mature trees and pathways on them.
    Many of these school sites also have park sites attached to them. Those are not being touch. Those include the soccer fields, baseball diamonds, mature trees. The school sites are just reserve land with grass growing on them with no dedicated activity zones. The rest of the parks will remain untouched.

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Edmonton has one of the biggest sprawl of any city in north america, and removing a few unused school sites isn't going to change the look and feel of these neighbourhoods. It will add more people to neighbourhoods, reducing the costs for the city to provide services from road way maintenance, sewers, to emergency coverage.
    These sites are not unused. They are used as parks. Here is a video of me standing in one actively used as a park, discussing using good infill sites like the ones I've already mentioned instead of using our soccer fields, baseball diamonds, and green spaces with pathways and mature trees on them. Take note of the dozens of children playing and their families, most of whom have no idea that their soccer pitch will soon be stolen outside of law.

    http://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/video?cli...ylistPageNum=4

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    For too long, strong-armed Nimby-like community groups have kept this city as an inefficient service provider, always balking when any development comes near. This is no different. It's a knee jerk nimby reaction that you're platforming to be mayor on, and the extra platforms you've only very recently tacked on are merely just to attempt to seem like you actually have any other care either then whats developing in your own backyard...
    We are not Nimby's, and this is no knee-jerk. When my community discovered the sale of our greenspace, it became my obligation as our Community League President to look into it, and I discovered that the City has been involved in ripping off community after community over the past six years, exhausting countless volunteers who wanted nothing other than a place for their children to play, as was promised to them by the Alberta Government in the Municipal Government Act. You have not replied with any good legal argument for expropriating these sites other than to call those who are lined up to do something about it names. You don't want to attend a community meeting in Ermineskin. Why don't you come out and call everyone who shows up Nimby's? Come on down! Get up from the computer, and we can take a walk through some of these "unused" sites together!
    This is where I differ from your points. It's not the entire park thats being develop, just the area that would've been developed in to a school.

    Again, thanks for your invite, but I'll continue to observe from the outside. I'm quite aware that there are a lot of mis-informed people at these meetings, and its not my cup of tea to attend where people like to argue on rumour rather than anything fact based.

    Another post to follow this with actual facts...

  49. #49

    Default

    . How does the City determine the amount of land to develop on surplus school sites, and its location? Will any surplus school site development result in a loss of open space planned for that site?
    Joint Use sites (reserve land set aside for schools and parkland) are planned with 2 primary principles in mind:

    to provide a location for a school building and
    to provide open space and recreational opportunities for the community.
    Any new developments on city-acquired surplus school sites will be constructed on land originally assembled for school buildings (called the “building envelope”). Developments are not constructed on planned open space or parkland. In some instances, it was decided to temporarily use the school building envelope for sports fields, pending development of the school. The land surrounding the school building envelope will not be altered and will remain as open space/sports field for the community.
    How was the size of the school building envelope originally established?
    School building envelopes vary depending on the school board and the type of school that was planned for the site (e.g. elementary or junior high schools). Maps of current surplus school sites on the City website show the approximate location and size of school envelopes recently declared surplus.

    The size of school building envelopes is based on standards developed by the City and local school boards. These standards are reviewed regularly and have changed over time. They are incorporated into site specific plans that are created once the Area Structure Plan and Neighbourhood Structure Plans have been approved.

    We don’t think our community should lose open space. Can we request a community recreational needs assessment?
    The City has received a number of citizen inquiries regarding a loss of open space in communities where a surplus school building site is being re-purposed for a new use. In some cases community members have requested that the City conduct a recreational community needs assessment. Our understanding is that the objective of these requests is to propose that the City acquire these surplus school sites for parkland instead of using them for residential development.

    There has been some confusion over what a recreational community needs assessment is and when one is conducted. The recreational community needs assessment is referenced in the Urban Parks Management Plan (UPMP) as a way to inform the process when the City is considering declaring parkland surplus. It is intended to help determine whether a parkland parcel is no longer needed for park use and can be disposed of for other uses.

    However, in the case of surplus school sites, no parkland has been declared surplus by the City.
    These are building sites that have been declared surplus by local school boards. The building sites are supported by adjacent roadway servicing and infrastructure and have always been intended for development. Because no parkland has been declared surplus by the City since UPMP was approved in 2006, the City has yet to conduct one of these assessments.

    The same plan that references recreational community needs assessments (UPMP) also acknowledges that both the City and local school boards support the temporary use of vacant school building sites as sports fields, with the understanding that the use is temporary and will end when development occurs. This is what is happening with those surplus school sites which have temporary playing fields. Now that development is occuring, as was always intended, the fields will no longer be available as playing fields.

    It is important to note that the City has not proposed construction on any of the sports fields that were planned for the school building sites but has retained these sports fields as parkland for community use.

    To help the public better understand the planned use of shared City/School Board sites, the City is working to prepare and install signs on these sites that clearly indicate the location and number of building sites that are approved on each location.
    http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...sites-faq.aspx


    This all seems different than what you are saying Curtis Penner. How is it that the city of edmonton website is different than what you are claiming is happening? Why are you spreading mis-information?
    Last edited by Medwards; 06-06-2013 at 02:48 PM.

  50. #50

    Default

    I decided to look into Ermineskin a bit further. You get more details for each of the surplus school sites here: http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...ing-sites.aspx

    Lets dig further into Ermineskin and the claims made above by Curtis Penner. Curtis claims that the city wants to develop all the greenspace in this community (the baseball fields, the soccer fields, the multi-use paths.... The picture below shows different. The only area of the "park" that will be developed is the former school site (look for area called TBD for reference. This is maybe 10% of the entire "green space" of the entire park...



    Note: All the area label AGU is not going to be touched, and has never, ever, been part of the surplus school sites program. Only the small bubble on the bottom right corner of the park. Maybe 10% of the entire contained greenspace. Only the part the was originally to be developed (if needed) for a school...

    Nimby for sure. I bet it has more to do with the fact that the city wants to these sites to be used as first places: http://www.edmonton.ca/for_residents...rst-place.aspx which some people are calling "low income housing" which is entirely untrue.

    add in the misinformation being spread above... no wonder I don't want to attend this AGM.
    Last edited by Medwards; 06-06-2013 at 03:09 PM.

  51. #51

    Default

    [QUOTE=Medwards;523802]
    This all seems different than what you are saying Curtis Penner. How is it that the city of edmonton website is different than what you are claiming is happening? Why are you spreading mis-information?
    It is the City of Edmonton that is spreading mis-information, at the direction of council. The city is taking authority to build only a school or a park as authority to build condominiums. But at this point we are going in circles. So I would like to ask you, why shouldn't we build condos in the river valley? It is also Reserve Land. Once it has been decided that a school is not being built on an MR, it is functionally no different than the river valley according to the MGA.

  52. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legacy View Post
    Curtis, if you're running for public office, I'd recommend you brush up on your spelling and grammar. (Others whom are not, dmb for example, carry on).

    Edmonton Coliseum, not "Colosseum"

    And "aweful" has no "e" - unless you really mean "full of awe."
    I agree. Like it or not, people get impressions about others from how they communicate, and particularly the content of the message. From what I've read, he wouldn't get my vote. Regarding the content of the message, I'm not confident that Curtis fully understands the job he's applying for and the process.

  53. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curtispenner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    This all seems different than what you are saying Curtis Penner. How is it that the city of edmonton website is different than what you are claiming is happening? Why are you spreading mis-information?
    It is the City of Edmonton that is spreading mis-information, at the direction of council. The city is taking authority to build only a school or a park as authority to build condominiums. But at this point we are going in circles. So I would like to ask you, why shouldn't we build condos in the river valley? It is also Reserve Land. Once it has been decided that a school is not being built on an MR, it is functionally no different than the river valley according to the MGA.
    We have condos and other development in the river valley. It's limited to small areas, just like your park, the development is limited to the area that was going to be developed anyways. 90% of entire park isn't even being considered to be touched. The city isn't spreading mis-information, YOU ARE. You are claiming that the entire park (soccer fields, baseball fields, the actual greenspace (not the surplus school site) is proposed to be developed. You are lieing through your teeth to attempt to gain supporters, and you damn well know it. Why are you lieing about this? Because you don't want a First Places condo built next to your place... Stop claiming the city is going to redevelop all the park space. That is hardly true at all.

  54. #54
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Montrose
    Posts
    1,231

    Default

    In other news, sounds like MP Peter Goldring is considering running for mayor. God helps us all if he does and succeeds.
    Vision - The art of seeing the invisible

  55. #55

    Default

    Medwards, here is a better version of Ermineskin Park that the City of Edmonton provided to our Community League. The SE surplus school site is the one the city is currently planning to expropriate outside of law. Notice the soccier pitch and ball diamond on it.

    Ermineskin Park is a bad example of a regular Surplus School Site because the city already surplussed the NE and SE parks at or about 1990 as part of an agreement with Ermineskin Community that enabled St. Joseph's Auxiliary Hospital to be built. The school site that sat in the NW section of the park was only half the size of St. Joseph's current footprint. In exchange for Ermineskin giving up three acres of MR Parkland to expand the St. Joe's site, The City of Edmonton agreed to surplus the remaining school sites and fold them into MR forever and never touch them again, as well as agreeing to build the lit path and landscaping in Ermineskin Park using the proceeds of the land sale, which is consistent with the Municipal Government Act. So the proceeds of the St. Joseph's sale were reinvested in Ermineskin, in effect trading quantity of park space for quality of park space. Ermineskin's residents agreed. The city has now renegged on their end of the deal and is attempting to steal what they already agreed to dedicate to parkland. This situation is likely only specific to Ermineskin.

    Many other communities would agree, I am sure, to trade quantity for quality in exchange for the City of Edmonton reinvesting the proceeds of the surplus site sale in the parkland that is left. Unfortunately the City is misappropriating the proceeds of the surplus site sales and not accounting for them.

    You put a lot of words in my mouth, saying I have claimed that the City is selling the entire park. Where did I say that?

    If you want to discuss a simpler park that doesn't already have a prior agreement by the city to dedicate the surplus school sites to parkland, why don't we discuss Skyrattler. It is more relevant anyhow, as the City intends to start digging it up this fall.



    P.S. Note the notation of "Approved Building Sites" on the label. That really bothered me precisely because the opposite is true. Here is the email I sent to the City expressing my objection to the incorrect labels:

    From: Curtis Penner <[email protected]>
    Date: May 23, 2013 8:24:07 PM MDT
    To: Tim McCargar <[email protected]>, David Holehouse <[email protected]>
    Subject: Re: ERMINESKIN SCHOOLE SITES PLAN

    Tim,

    Can you please unhighlight the North areas, which were already built on, and replace the label of the South-East area as a "Proposed Building Site" instead of an "Approved Building Site"? Our community has not approved building on their green-space. As we indicated in the meeting, we believe that Ermineskin residents will be amenable to a development plan if the city clarifies that 100% the land sale proceeds will be reinvested in Ermineskin's parks and recreational infrastructure. At this point there has been no public consultation, no Public Meeting, and no Recreational Needs Assessment. With this in mind, can you please highlight and colour the playground? Ermineskin residents have identified repairing or rebuilding the dilapidated playground as being one of their biggest recreational needs.

    Can you please also include a calculation of the building envelope size, plus forty parking stalls as originally planned, so we can get an idea what the amount of area being that is being contemplated on for a building site.

    Thank you.

    Curtis


    Note how I indicated that we would be amenable to a development plan if the City would simply clarify that they did not intend to steal the proceeds and instead invest it in what was left. At the time I was not aware of the fact that the City had in fact already agreed with our community to never touch these sites ever again. So yeah, Ermineskin is complicated. But I suppose every one is. Each community dukes it out with the City and loses in its own unique way. Even though the City is in the wrong.
    Last edited by curtispenner; 06-06-2013 at 03:45 PM.

  56. #56

    Default

    those were temp spaces anyways... they were always meant to be redeveloped, into a school if the school board needed them, which they have determined they dont. It still looks like a majority of the park space will remain in tact, despite your claims.

    I'll look at skyrattler and respond.

  57. #57

    Default

    this is skyrattler here: http://edmonton.ca/for_residents/fir...tler-photo.pdf

    Maybe you have a different picture?

    Looks the same as the other surplus school sites. Much of the rest of the park space is left...only developing the area that was going to see development one way or another.

  58. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    this is skyrattler here: http://edmonton.ca/for_residents/fir...tler-photo.pdf

    Maybe you have a different picture?

    Looks the same as the other surplus school sites. Much of the rest of the park space is left...only developing the area that was going to see development one way or another.
    Every single Skyrattler resident (yes, 100%) who attended their packed public meeting disapproved of this development which you so casually support from your chair.

    Skyrattler is currently comprised of 70% condominiums and 10% row housing, per this City of Edmonton report. This is already well above the City of Edmonton average, and all the more reason that they need the parks they have now.

    It seems very easy for you, who did not attend their public meeting, to support the expropriation of their green space. But you seem to me an armchair activist who enjoys feeding off the destruction of other people's standard of living and quality of life. I once again invite you to come out to the Ermineskin AGM on June 11. Or alternately, perhaps you can attend the Yard Sale that Skyrattler is conducting on June 15. The Yard Sale will take place on their surplus school site, which they will be roping off, and they will be circulating a petition, because unlike you, they live there and want to keep their green space. You should go tell them how crazy they are to want to keep it in a neighbourhood already comprised of 80% multifamily. Here is a citizens activist movement of people that are actually active, opposing development on this park: https://www.facebook.com/PermanentlyParked?ref=stream

    Why, do you think, is it a good idea for the City to dig up this park and put condos on it despite 100% of the attendees of the public meeting disapproving of that direction, while other communities such as Fulton Place are begging for the City's help in redeveloping abandoned empty school buildings?

    Also, you keep ignoring the definition of "Municipal Reserve" in the Municipal Government Act, which I'm pasting again for ease of reference. Where does it refer to building condos here?

    "Municipal reserve, school reserve, or municipal and school reserve may be used by a municipality or school board or by them jointly only for any or all of the following purposes:

    (a) a public park;
    (b) a public recreation area;
    (c) school board purposes
    (d) to separate areas of land that are used for different purposes."

    And why won't you address the City's failure to re-invest proceeds from the lands they have already sold in those communities from which the lands were sold? Like Ermineskin's residents, I believe that many communities would be amenable to this type of redevelopment if the City would commit to improving what is left. But they are not. They are simply stealing from us and keeping bad books despite agreements to keep good books and annual audits of the MR accounts.
    Last edited by curtispenner; 06-06-2013 at 04:42 PM.

  59. #59

    Default

    I don't get it. These sites were going to be developed as schools. Your greenspace would've been gone anyways. The school boards determined they didn't need the space. In the same envelop the school would've taken, they are creating space for first places for people that might be having trouble getting their first home bought or as seniors residence. These spaces will bring more people into the community. Will help keep enrollment numbers up in the schools in the area. Will help seniors and families that can't quite get their own place and are stuck in the dead-end world of paying someone else's mortgage. It's a great program with lots of merit...

    The net difference is zero. You are not losing anything. Those "green spaces" were only temporary green spaces. The NSP and ASP all clearly state that those green spaces are temporary.

    the fact the school boards has deemed they unrequired doesn't not mean they will now remain green spaces forever.

    And of those green spaces, there is still plently more green space in Skyrattler than there is in many mature neighbourhoods, or even Oliver, a true community well and above the average in the city of Edmonton.

    Your arguing for temporary green spaces to become permanent green spaces. Spaces that were intended for development.

    And its not like the entire park was a school site. Only a small part of it. The way your platform comes across, you read like the whole entire park is going to be redevelop, when its only a very small portion.

    I, once again, thank you kindly for your invite to the AGM, but respectfully turn the invitation down. I'm quite aware that there is an army of people misinformed by the ilks of you, claiming that their about to lose all their park space, when in reality, its only the temporary space, and of that, it only represents a very small portion of the available park space in those communities.

    I'm done responding on this subject at this time... I've lost any interest in replying further to you. We both have opinions that differ greatly. I respect you for your opinion and for you campaigning for something you obviously deeply believe in, but disagree with it wholeheartedly. I also believe that there's better ways to confront this issue that running as a mayor on a single-issue platform. I do commend you for taking the time to respond to me, and others here, and hope that you'll dive deeper and participate further in other discussions on C2E. There is much more to debate about Edmonton than surplus school sites that have ever only been temporary greenspaces.

    Thanks for your time.

    Matt
    Last edited by Medwards; 06-06-2013 at 04:37 PM.

  60. #60

    Default

    You're welcome. I appreciate a good debate. We will agree to disagree on this topic.

    This thread will be a great resource for anyone wanting to look deeper in the Surplus School Site issue. I've used this site as a resource many times in the past, and C2E always seems to find new developments, buildings, etc. first. I first learned of half the new developments I've ever researched here. Thanks to everyone here for all of your time and efforts.

  61. #61

    Default

    I know I said I wasn't going to respond further, but I found something... something your not quoting at all Curtis...

    BILL 41 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT ACT
    The provisions of Bill 41 amending the Municipal Government Act with respect to community
    service reserves were proclaimed on November 24, 2010.
    What is Community Services Reserve and how does it apply to reserve lands?
    This legislation created a new category of reserve land designation, Community Services Reserve
    (CSR), for surplus school building sites. The CSR designation can only be applied to the building
    envelope portion of municipal or school reserves where the school board declares that it no longer
    requires the site for school purposes. CSR lands can be used for a broader range of public
    purposes that benefit the community.
    What is the process to designate a reserve parcel as Community Services Reserve?
    During subdivision, the owner of a parcel of land may be required to dedicate up to 10 per cent of
    land for Municipal Reserve (MR), School Reserve (SR), or Municipal and School Reserve (MSR).
    The parcel will have a land title that designates it as a reserve with MR, SR, or MSR in the name of
    the municipality and/or the school board, for example, Lot 1MR, Block 1, Plan 082-1234. These
    lands may be used for park, recreation or school purposes only.
    If a school board no longer requires a site for school purposes it may declare the site surplus and
    transfer its interest to the municipality. This declaration will not take effect until it is approved by
    the Minister of Education. If the Minister of Education approves the surplus declaration, the
    municipality may, by bylaw, designate the school building envelope of the site to CSR and direct
    the Registrar of Land Titles to create a new title with the CSR designation.
    What uses are allowed on Community Services Reserve sites?
    A community service reserve site may be used for any of the following:
     a public library,
     a police station, a fire station or an ambulance services facility,
     a non-profit day care facility,
     a non-profit senior citizen facility,
     a non-profit special needs facility,
     a municipal facility providing direct service to the public, and
     affordable housing.
    Seems the city isn't breaking any laws, or contriving the MGA . here's the link I found it on. http://www.municipalaffairs.alberta....s/ms/09-10.pdf

    Looks very much like the city of Edmonton is following the legal and allowed uses of CSR, MR and SR zones.

    Again, NIMBY. This is an allowed use of the land, according to the MGA approved amendments, and it seems that people are just upset that affordable housing or seniors housing is being built.

    From the people I've talked to that are oppose to this project, they aren't opposed to losing a tiny bit of temporary green space, they are opposed to affordable housing or seniors housing being built next to their 'little oasis' next to what they thought was a permanent park.
    Last edited by Medwards; 06-06-2013 at 05:12 PM.

  62. #62

    Default

    The City is not relying on the CSR designation because there are legal issues with it. If they were zoning these as CSR's then I would be discussing the CSR designation, but they are going straight from MR to RA7 etc.

    Also, even in this case, the funds from the disposition of the MR lands must still be reinvested in the community. The entire portion of the Municipal Government Act that discusses this issue starts at around Section 665 and runs till Section 680. But Tim McCargar admitted himself that the City's legal dept. avoids CSR altogether, because if you read through the MGA, you'll see that they still get tangled back into MR, Section 672.
    Last edited by curtispenner; 06-06-2013 at 05:13 PM.

  63. #63

    Default

    This seems to also reflect Municipal Reserve (MR), School Reserve (SR), or Municipal and School Reserve (MSR), which falls under the CSR.

  64. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    This seems to also reflect Municipal Reserve (MR), School Reserve (SR), or Municipal and School Reserve (MSR), which falls under the CSR.
    The City is not attempting to rely on CSR because it loops back into MR regardless. Since the City is not using it, any discussion of it would be hypothetical and academic.

    Most importantly, the proceeds from the disposition would still need to be reinvested in the community's parkland, which is not happening. I would like an answer on why the City is failing to reinvest the proceeds of the MR dispositions in parkland. Specifically, the parkland they are mandated to invest in is the remaining parkland in the community losing it. This is layed out both in the Municipal Government Act and in City of Edmonton Policy C468:

    TITLE: Policy to Govern the Use of Funds from the Sale of Surplus School Sites
    Policy Statement:
    Residual funds received from the sale of a surplus school site will be credited to the Residential Land Assembly Account for use by the Parks and Recreation Department. Within the Residential Land Assembly Account, funds will be credited to the account of the specific neighbourhood from which they were received.
    Residual funds will be disbursed to the geographic areas which generated the funds in the following order:
    - firstly within the neighbourhood level plan area.
    - secondly to adjacent neighbourhoods within the larger plan area.
    - thirdly to other neighbourdoods or the district park within the larger plan area.
    Within the geographic areas, funds will be disbursed in the following order:
    - to retire outstanding debt incurred from the acquisition and servicing of the school site, including accrued interest to the date of receipt of funds from the sale.
    - to acquire required neighbourhood school land and/or park land including environmentally sensitive natural areas.
    - to develop parks to the Parks and Recreation Department minimum level of service.
    - to develop parks to shared level of service, based on assessed program needs.

    As I've said here a few times and in my own communications with the City, most communities are willing to sacrifice quantity for quality. I.E. the type of investments that were made in Ermineskin Park when we did St. Joseph's in 1990. But the city is trying to both sell the lands and pocket the proceeds. It is a violation of the Municipal Government Act and the City's own policy.
    Last edited by curtispenner; 06-06-2013 at 06:02 PM.

  65. #65
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curtispenner View Post
    They were designated as Municipal Reserve, which can only be used for schools or parks. Since they are not used for schools they can only be used for parks. Alternately if they are disposed the proceeds must be used for schools or improving parks. Since there are no schools on these sites, the only legal use of the funds would be to improve parks. The funds are not being reinvested in our parks, however. In fact, none of us knows where the funds are going because the City of Edmonton has not issued an annual report showing showing the financial activities of the mandated "Reserve Account" for "all monies paid to the city from the sale of Reserve Land located in areas containing a residential component and all monies paid to the City in place of Reserve Land dedication in areas containing a residential component, as contemplated in the Municipal Government Act." This is quoted from Section 12 of the Joint Use Agreement: Land, 2009, to which the City is a signatory. It looks like the City is instead trying to sell the lands and run, and they are hoping that no-one will notice where the money goes. This is illegal. And I will make sure that everyone notices.
    What the City is doing with the surplus school sites is perfectly legal and in conformity with Sections 672 and 674 of the Municipal Government Act.

    Section 672(1) states: "If a school board holds an interest in a school reserve, municipal and school reserve or municipal reserve under this Part or the former Act and declares that the reserve is surplus to the school board’s needs, the school board must transfer its interest in the land to the municipality where the reserve is located, for the consideration agreed on between them."

    Section 674 of the MGA sets out the rules for a municipality to sell or dispose of surplus school sites.

    If you truly believe what the City is doing with the surplus school sites is illegal, why aren't you taking the City to court rather than running for Mayor?

  66. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by curtispenner View Post
    They were designated as Municipal Reserve, which can only be used for schools or parks. Since they are not used for schools they can only be used for parks. Alternately if they are disposed the proceeds must be used for schools or improving parks. Since there are no schools on these sites, the only legal use of the funds would be to improve parks. The funds are not being reinvested in our parks, however. In fact, none of us knows where the funds are going because the City of Edmonton has not issued an annual report showing showing the financial activities of the mandated "Reserve Account" for "all monies paid to the city from the sale of Reserve Land located in areas containing a residential component and all monies paid to the City in place of Reserve Land dedication in areas containing a residential component, as contemplated in the Municipal Government Act." This is quoted from Section 12 of the Joint Use Agreement: Land, 2009, to which the City is a signatory. It looks like the City is instead trying to sell the lands and run, and they are hoping that no-one will notice where the money goes. This is illegal. And I will make sure that everyone notices.
    What the City is doing with the surplus school sites is perfectly legal and in conformity with Sections 672 and 674 of the Municipal Government Act.

    Section 672(1) states: "If a school board holds an interest in a school reserve, municipal and school reserve or municipal reserve under this Part or the former Act and declares that the reserve is surplus to the school board’s needs, the school board must transfer its interest in the land to the municipality where the reserve is located, for the consideration agreed on between them."

    Section 674 of the MGA sets out the rules for a municipality to sell or dispose of surplus school sites.

    If you truly believe what the City is doing with the surplus school sites is illegal, why aren't you taking the City to court rather than running for Mayor?
    Our community league and others are considering taking the City to court. The problem is that Community Leagues are poor and that the City has an entire legal team paid for with our own taxes.

    In our April meeting we approved a course of action which would at least work in a type of "legal crowdsourcing", which is to register a "Caveat Forbidding Registration" on our MR lands. It would be cheap to register a caveat. Unfortunately we do not have the budget to actually hire lawyers so it would be a "David vs. Goliath" type thing in court and I'm sure we would probably fail. But then the next community league in line to lose their parks might learn from my mistakes and repeat the process. Ultimately because we are cash strapped, and because of that time tested maxim that "you can't beat City Hall", we really are better off attempting to replace City Hall.

    On the topic of the City selling/disposing of our MR sites, even if it is legal for them to dispose of them, their use of the funds flowing therefrom is illegal, as I keep stating. The relevant section of the MGA is 675(3):

    On removal of the designation, the municipality or the municipality and the school board may sell, lease or otherwise dispose of the land, but the proceeds from the sale, lease or other disposition may be used (a) in the case of the sale, lease or other disposition of a municipal reserve or a municipal and school reserve, only for any or all of the purposes referred to in section 671(2) or for any matter connected to those purposes."

    The purposes referenced in section 671(2) are:
    (a) a public park;
    (b) a public recreation area;
    (c) school board purposes;
    (d) to separate areas of land that are used for different purposes.

    There are separate provisions for disposing of Community Services Reserves...but those have only been in existence since 2010 and the City is not attempting to use the CSR provisions in relation to the established MR sites that they are actually attempting to seize.

    So it again comes down to them not using the money that they make on selling our parks for the purpose of parks and recreation, which are the only alternatives to school board purposes. And then there is City Policy 468 that deals so clearly with how those monies are to be spent. I keep repeating that our communities are not necessarily opposed to development, and that most would accept a trade of quality for quantity, i.e. that most communities would accept the development in return for a reinvestment of the proceeds in their remaining parks. But the City is trying to keep the cash. It is illegal. And more importantly, it is wrong. So we have opted with attempting to replace City Hall.
    Last edited by curtispenner; 06-06-2013 at 07:06 PM.

  67. #67

    Default

    Wow this thread has gone from "save our parks" to "save our school sites" to "we're not opposed to development as long as we get something in return"

    If your only going to look at the parts of the MGA that barely supports your position while ignoring the rest of it that says it okay for what the city wants to do, as well as recent highlighted amendments to the act, what else are you going to turn your blinders on if you ever get elected?

    Also, current council supports this first places initiative and most of them are likely to be reelected. How do you as mayor make any meaningful changes here when you don't have the backing of at least half of council?

  68. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Wow this thread has gone from "save our parks" to "save our school sites" to "we're not opposed to development as long as we get something in return"

    If your only going to look at the parts of the MGA that barely supports your position while ignoring the rest of it that says it okay for what the city wants to do, as well as recent highlighted amendments to the act, what else are you going to turn your blinders on if you ever get elected?

    Also, current council supports this first places initiative and most of them are likely to be reelected. How do you as mayor make any meaningful changes here when you don't have the backing of at least half of council?
    Our aim is to convince council that not listening to their constituents is a big mistake. There are good community minded contenders for every council seat, and this is a legitimate election issue which will impact who is elected in our wards.

    With respect to the MGA, the City itself is not relying on the sections of the MGA which say it is okay for them to do this, I believe because they did not exist when the land was designated MR. That's just my conjecture though.

    "Save our parks" and "Save our school sites" means exactly the same thing if a school is not built on the site. I don't know what you are driving at here.

    And as you can see from the May 26th date of my communication with the City above, we have had the consistent position that we want to work with the City, we just want the city to follow the provisions of the MGA that specifically outline that they must use the proceeds for improvement of parkland...and that in exchange for them following the MGA in this regard, we will support them in the Public Hearing that is required under sections 230, 606, and 674.

    Blue Quill showed up in droves for their Public Hearing and despite unanimous non-agreement by its residents, Council voted "yes" on stealing their park. Since we have a council that is supposed to listen to the people and obviously is not, they should be replaced with one that will.

  69. #69

    Default

    It looks like we are not alone in our battle for our parks. Here are some guys in Turkey that are being tear-gassed by the police for protecting one of the last green spaces in Istanbul. Good for them for standing up for our common right to parkland.

    http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/its-...bul-and-turkey

    "The international urbanist community, which has a new, tone-perfect example of how concerns about public space can spur greater, broader calls for democracy and basic rights, and how people everywhere are equally willing to fight for some measure of control of their parks, neighborhoods and built environment."

  70. #70

    Default

    Wow, thats quite the far leap, even considering your history on this thread.

    Edmonton has more parkland than just about any city I've ever traveled to.

    Istanbul has none. The fight that's going on over there in Turkey has a lot more to do with a corrupt government that fighting over the last park space.

  71. #71

    Default

    Silly question, Curtis, but are you related to Fred Penner? Good luck with your campaign! It takes a lot of gonads to stick your neck out like that, and good on you for jousting with us on the board.

  72. #72

    Default

    I'm pretty sure all of the Penners in Canada are related to about three boats worth of Mennonites that that settled some of our best farmland in the 1800's but I'm not directly related to him other than having listened to him growing up.

    ".....Take you riding in my car, car, take you riding in my car, car. Take you riding in my car, car, take you riding in my car." - Ah good old Fred Penner

  73. #73
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,529

    Default

    Curtis, thanks for your reply above.

    The City's lacks transparency about many things financial. Surplus school sites reserves accounts is only one example. If the City has a policy about first reinvesting monies in the neighbourhoods in which the sites are located, they must be transparent about it.

    Having said this, the City's motivation for developing the surplus school building envelopes is not to turn a profit. In most cases, the objective is to make home ownership more affordable or to provide rental housing for seniors and other modest income groups. For the First Time Homebuyer sites, the City does not even begin to recover the land costs until Year 6. The building costs are recovered by the developer and do not benefit the City. Link: http://www.edmonton.ca/for_residents...faq.aspx#40450. For the seniors sites, I'm not certain the City ever intends to recover the land costs.

    The criticism many of us in inner city neighbourhoods have is that the Administration's designation of the surplus school sites is too timid. The biggest need in this City is for non-market housing (including permanent supportive housing) for non-senior low income and high needs individuals and families. Currently, this type of non-market housing is mostly located in a handful of inner city neighbourhoods. None of the surplus school sites have yet been proposed for this type of badly needed housing. Some of the sites should be.

    By raising the profile of this important issue, your decision to run for Mayor provides those of us who think the Administration is being too timid in its designations to raise this concern.

  74. #74

    Default

    Kudos to you for fighting this fight, Curtis.

    There's good info in the emails you're passing around between yourself, the City (Tim McCargar, Victoria Carnaghan, Prabhat Dahal, Christel Hyshka, Walter Trocenko and Heather McRae), and various members of the EFCL.. you should post them here.

  75. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legacy View Post
    Kudos to you for fighting this fight, Curtis.

    There's good info in the emails you're passing around between yourself, the City (Tim McCargar, Victoria Carnaghan, Prabhat Dahal, Christel Hyshka, Walter Trocenko and Heather McRae), and various members of the EFCL.. you should post them here.
    The problem with my email history with the city is there are so many from me to them and so few in reply. I'm losing track of how many different ways and times we have asked for information from them and received no answers.

    I will post my two most recent emails to Tim McCargar & friends at the City below. Here is the first:

    Begin forwarded message:

    From: Curtis Penner <[email protected]>
    Date: June 7, 2013 10:59:56 AM MDT
    To: Tim McCargar <[email protected]>, Victoria Carnaghan <[email protected]>, Prabhat Dahal <[email protected]>, Christel Hyshka <[email protected]>, Walter Trocenko <[email protected]>, Heather McRae <[email protected]>
    Subject: Re: Reply on FOUR MONTH old Question to City of Edmonton

    Thanks for your response Tim on your legal justifications for selling our MR's, which was in reply to a request we made at our Community Liaison meeting on February 5. Why did it take the City over four months to reply? Is this the normal timeframe for responses to the public in your consultation with communities?

    I am also wondering how the outcome of the process is hinged on the required public hearing, if at all. If every person that shows up at the public meeting objects to the using these Municipal Reserve lands as building sites, then what happens? Does the City just sell the lands anyhow? At our Community Liason meeting you distributed materials that showed the conclusion of the public engagement process with a flow-chart that ended in "Building Begins". I am re-attaching the email in which I originally pointed this out to you, on February 27, 2013.

    In that same February 27 email I requested three things which on which you have never answered, despite numerous requests and reminders. They are:

    1. Can you please respond in writing regarding how a community league can formally request a recreational needs assessment
    2. on the City of Edmonton's use of MR land sale monies pursuant to Section 12 (Reserve Accounts) of the Joint Use Agreement, and
    3. Whether the City intends to appoint the Community League Liasons as sub-committees under Section 3 of the Joint Use Agreement.


    Do you intend to answer these questions?

    With respect to 3. above, it would make sense to me that the Community League Liasons from all affected sites appoint two or three people among them to sit on a Joint Use Agreement sub-committee. What are your thoughts on this?

    Yours truly,

    Curtis Penner
    President - Ermineskin Community League

    - and -

    Chairman
    South West Area Counsel Transportation & Development Committee



    From: Curtis Penner <[email protected]>
    Date: February 27, 2013 4:14:03 AM MST
    To: Tim McCargar <[email protected]>, Ron Jacob <[email protected]>
    Subject: Re: Liaison Groups - Community Representatives (February 28, 2013)

    Tim,

    I didn't hear back from you today.

    Can you please respond in writing regarding how a community league can formally request a recreational needs assessment, and on the City of Edmonton's use of MR land sale monies pursuant to Section 12 (Reserve Accounts) of the Joint Use Agreement (the Agreement) and on whether the City intends to appoint the Community League Liasons as sub-committees under Section 3 of the Agreement?

    In the February 5 meeting minutes you state that "with the exception of Dunluce (a community where a First Place development has been approved) the municipal reserve designation has not been removed on any of the undeveloped school building sites with uses not yet determined." At the meeting you informed us that the use had been determined by "administrative process". This is backed up by the title of the document you sent along with the minutes, which is entitled "Builder Engagement Process" and which ends with a "Building Permit Application Submitted" and "Building [beginning]". See "builder engagement chart 1.pdf", which you sent to all of us concurrent with the minutes, attached.

    It appears to me that the City has already concluded that our Municipal Reserve lands are to be sold to builders.

    I look forward to your call.

    Yours very truly,

    Curtis Penner
    President
    Ermineskin Community League



    From: Tim McCargar <[email protected]>
    Date: June 7, 2013 8:44:03 AM MDT
    To: Victoria Carnaghan <[email protected]>
    Cc: Prabhat Dahal <[email protected]>, Christel Hyshka <[email protected]>
    Bcc:[email protected]
    Subject: Community Liaison follow up - remaining sites

    Hello,

    During our meetings earlier this year we were asked to provide information regarding the City of Edmonton’s authority to change zoning and designation on lands currently designated as Municipal Reserve (MR). I would like to offer this information in reply.

    · Sections 674 and 675 of the Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c. M-26, (the "MGA") provide the legal basis for the City's authority to proceed in developing the surplus school building sites.

    · When dealing with land that is designated as Municipal Reserve, section 674 of the MGA directs Council to hold a public hearing in accordance with section 230 and advertise in accordance with section 606 in the event that Council wishes to sell, lease or otherwise dispose of land designated as municipal reserve.

    · Section 675 specifically allows Council, after considering representations made at the public hearing, to remove the municipal reserve designation and sell, lease or otherwise dispose of the land.

    · As Council complies with the relevant provisions of the MGA, Council has the authority to utilize the surplus school building sites to support its plans and strategic directions.

    Administration has followed the above legislative process with the 2012 approval of new seniors' housing on eight building sites. It consulted with communities and the public in order to gain input.

    Moving forward with the remaining 11 building sites, Administration is planning a public engagement process to gain public input prior to finalizing new use recommendations.

    Currently, because no new uses have yet been finalized or approved, no new residential development of these building sites can occur at this time.

    Following this engagement process, Administration will follow all appropriate land use change processes and comply with legislative requirements, which will include public notifications and a public hearing, pursuant to section 675 of the MGA.

  76. #76

    Default

    2nd recent email. This one is getting at the specific use of the funds that flow from the disposition of our precious Municipal Reserve lands. I have been on this for a long time with the City and never receive any replies. At the very bottom of this thread notice the email from the City of Edmonton to our Community Leagues requesting that they appoint a committee of only two people (their emphasis) to act as liasons with the City, and giving us one week to submit the names for those representatives. We did so. The City then ignored our questions of them. Notice also that we copied Councillor Iveson and did not receive replies from him either. The City of Edmonton's "public engagement" process is a farce.

    Begin forwarded message:


    From: Curtis Penner <[email protected]>
    Date: June 7, 2013 12:27:47 PM MDT
    To: Tim McCargar <[email protected]>, Tim McCargar <[email protected]>, Victoria Carnaghan <[email protected]>, Prabhat Dahal <[email protected]>, Christel Hyshka <[email protected]>, Walter Trocenko <[email protected]>, Heather McRae <[email protected]>
    Subject: Re: Reply on FOUR MONTH old Question to City of Edmonton

    Tim,

    Further to point 2. on my prior email:

    2. on the City of Edmonton's use of MR land sale monies pursuant to Section 12 (Reserve Accounts) of the Joint Use Agreement,

    I sent the below emails for clarification and as reminders on February 25, March 12, and March 15.

    It has been three and a half months since I requested that the city of Edmonton "provide evidence that the City of Edmonton has lived up to its' word with respect to the requirement to deploy funds from the sale of surplus lands to recreation sites in those communities where Surplus School sites have already been rezoned and sold?"

    Do you intend to answer this question? You confirmed in our Community League meeting of May 14, 2013, that you served as the Chairman of the Joint Use Committee in 2006. As such you clearly understand the Joint Use Agreement and the City of Edmonton's obligations thereunder. Why are these obligations not being met?

    When the City asks something of our Community Leagues it typically provides a pretty short notice period for reply or action. Why is this courtesy not being returned to us?

    Yours truly,

    Curtis Penner
    President
    Ermineskin Community League

    - and -

    Chairman
    South West Area Counsel Transportation & Development Committee


    From: Curtis Penner <[email protected]>
    Date: March 15, 2013 3:02:41 PM MDT
    To: Tim McCargar <[email protected]>, Ron Jacob <[email protected]>
    Cc: "Cnc. Don Iveson" <[email protected]>
    Subject: Re: Liaison Groups - Community Representatives (February 28, 2013)

    Dear Mr. McCargar,

    I find that the Joint Use Agreement muddies the use of funds as stipulated by the Munucipal Government Act (attached).

    Specifically, the use of funds, according to Division 9 (Use and Disposal of Reserve Land), Section 672(2), must be: "only for any or all of the following purposes:

    (a) a public park;
    (b) a public recreation area;
    (c) school board purposes;
    (d) to separate areas of land that are used for different purposes."

    While I recognize that the MGA allows Municipal Reserve lands to be rezoned to Community Services Reserves for the uses outlined in 2.1, one of which is indeed affordable housing, Section 4 nonetheless requires that "money...must be accounted for separately, and may be used only for any or all of the purposes referred to in subsection (2)." So the use of funds must go to parks and public recreation. City policy document C468 (attached) in turn requires such funds to be used in the geographic areas in which the funds were generated.

    SInce you have not yet replied to my inquiry of February 25, below, on the City of Edmonton's established use of funds from prior dispositions of Surplus School Sites, I am beginning to wonder if those dispositions were even legal.

    Can you please provide some clarity for us on this? It has been nearly three weeks since I asked this question and we have not even received the courtesy of a reply.

    I look forward to hearing back from you.

    Yours very truly,

    Curtis Penner

    President
    Ermineskin Community League

    - and -

    Chairman
    South West Area Counsel Transportation & Development Committee

    <Attachment: Alberta Municipal Government Act>
    <Attachment: City of Edmonton Policy C468>


    From: Curtis Penner <[email protected]>
    Date: March 12, 2013 12:15:05 AM MDT
    To: Ron Jacob <[email protected]>, Tim McCargar <[email protected]>
    Cc: "Cnc. Don Iveson" <[email protected]>
    Subject: Re: Liaison Groups - Community Representatives (February 28, 2013)

    Dear Mr. McCarger,

    It has been over two weeks since I requested that the city of Edmonton "provide evidence that the City of Edmonton has lived up to its' word with respect to the requirement to deploy funds from the sale of surplus lands to recreation sites in those communities where Surplus School sites have already been rezoned and sold?"

    I remind you that Section 12.2 of the Joint Use Agreement ("the Agreement")stipulates that "the City will submit to the Steering Committee at least once a year a report showing the activities within the [Surplus School Site sale] account for the previous fiscal year, the opening balance, planned expenditures and anticipated year-end balance for the next Reserve Account fiscal year." In short, I am not asking the City to do anything it is not already doing under the terms of the Agreement. Perhaps you can simple forward this report.

    I remind you that I also requested a list of who comprises the Steering Committee. I have not received this either. So you can kill two birds with one stone by simply forwarding the report required of the City under 12.2 of the Agreement.

    Please send it along as soon as possible. It appears that this process is moving along very quickly and we as communities are not able to do our due diligence without your participation in the process.

    Yours truly,

    Curtis Penner

    President
    Ermineskin Community League

    - and -

    Chairman
    South West Area Counsel Transportation & Development Committee

    <Attachment: Joint Use Agreement: Land>


    From: Curtis Penner <[email protected]>
    Date: February 25, 2013 11:28:05 PM MST
    To: Tim McCargar <[email protected]>, Ron Jacob <[email protected]>
    Cc: [email protected]
    Subject: Re: Liaison Groups - Community Representatives (February 28, 2013)

    Hello everyone!

    This is an email to continue our community dialogue with respect to the City of Edmonton's desire to rezone our Municipal Reserve lands for residential development.

    I am copying representatives from Henderson Estates, Keheewin, La Perle, and Summerlea, who all had representatives at the below-mentioned meeting, the minutes for which I am attaching for everyone's reference.

    Dunluce, Kiniski Gardens, and Lymburn who were not able to attend but who are obviously quite impacted by this process. I have copied them also. I am not able to find contact information for Ogilvie Ridge or Belmont. Does anyone else have their contact info? If so please reply all and add them to the list of recipients.

    Messrs. McCargar and Jacob,

    In your summary of the information meetings regarding the potential rezoning of our communities' Municipal Reserve lands for residential development, below, you state:

    "At these meetings, attendees responded very favourably to this initiative."

    I can not speak for the two other meetings, but at the one I attended this was not the case at all. At the meeting I attended, community representatives expressed a near unanimous desire to retain their green space for recreational uses.

    At the meeting which I attended, I pointed that in order for a surplus school site to be rezoned, such rezoning must be consistent with the community's recreational needs as determined by Parks and Recreation. On behalf of Ermineskin Community League, I would like to formally request a recreational needs assessment for Ermineskin Park. Will this email suffice or do we need to serve notice of some kind to make this request?

    I would also like to point out that under the terms of the Joint Use Agreement: Land that the City of Edmonton signed with our various school boards, that "all monies paid to the City from the sale of Reserve Land located in areas containing a residential component and all monies paid to the City in place of Reserve Land didication in areas containing a residential componant, as contemplated in the Municipal Government Act, shall be deposited into [a Reserve Account] and shall be used for the purposes of the acquisition and construction of Joint Use Sites and Parks and Recreation Sites in residential areas." See Section 12 - Reserve Accounts, in the Joint Use Agreement that the City of Edmonton signed on July 3, 2009, attached, for the full text of the requirement.

    Can you please provide evidence that the City of Edmonton has lived up to its' word with respect to the requirement to deploy funds from the sale of surplus lands to recreation sites in those communities where Surplus School sites have already been rezoned and sold?

    Yours very truly,

    Curtis Penner
    President
    Ermineskin Community League

    <Attachment: Joint Use Agreement: Land>

    On 2013-02-25, at 2:31 PM, Curtis Penner wrote:

    Ron,

    Can you please send me the list of attending leagues on the night of Ermineskin's meeting?

    Thanks,

    Curtis

    On 2013-02-22, at 10:23 AM, Curtis Penner wrote:

    Ron,

    To say that they all said they wanted to keep their green space is not true. One Community League would like a development on their green space, but not on their current surplus school site, bot rather a different location which is currently very dark and adjacent to a parking lot in which a lot of crime occurs. They were mentioning needing to clean up used needles from this location. I believe the community is North of West Edmonton Mall if I remember correctly. They indicated they had requested a CPTED analysis/study on the site and had not received one yet, and that they favoured replacing the current drug-dealing area with a multi-family or seniors development.

    I do not remember the name of the community league. Everyone else seemed unanimous in wishing to keep their green space. At least two leagues requested formal assessments be conducted with respect to their recreational needs.

    Again if you could please let me know which other leagues were in attendance, I will gather feedback from the various participants and forward it back to you as soon as possible.

    Yours truly,

    Curtis Penner


    On 2013-02-22, at 10:13 AM, Curtis Penner wrote:

    Mr. Jacob,

    I do not remember the attendees responding favourably to this initiative. I remember them saying they wanted to keep their green space and that they felt this was being forced on them.

    Can you let me know which other community leagues were in attendance? I would like to poll them regarding whether they also have this recollection, or whether they indeed had a "favourable" view to this process.

    Thanks,

    Curtis Penner


    On 2013-02-21, at 1:38 PM, Ron Jacob wrote:

    Hello,

    In late January and early February, the City hosted three information meetings to introduce the concept of Community Liaison Groups. These groups will serve as an additional opportunity for the City and communities to discuss issues regarding undeveloped school building sites, now surplus to school board needs, and will strive to complement the City’s ongoing communications efforts.

    At these meetings, attendees responded very favourably to this initiative. Each community was asked to submit names and contact information for tworepresentatives to serve as liaisons between their communities and the City.

    This volunteer role will require each liaison to commit some time to working with their community leagues to share City updates and information with fellow community members, as well as to bring any questions or concerns from the community to the City.

    Once we have these names and contact information, we will work with the liaisons to develop details of how often each group will meet and how to most effectively share information. If you have not already done so, would you kindly forward by February 28, 2013 the name(s) of the individual(s) who will serve as community liaisons to [email protected].

    Liaisons will be grouped according to what type of development is planned or proposed for their community (whether First Place program, Seniors’ Housing Initiative, or undeveloped sites with residential uses yet to be determined). As many communities have more than one type of development, please ensure to cite the development type the individual will represent. If your community does have two developments planned, a liaison can choose to participate in both liaison groups or another individual may serve instead.


    Community Name:
    Program/development type:
    Community Liaison first and last names:
    Contact info for liaisons (email address/phone number):



    We’d like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in this initiative, and to your ongoing service to your community,

    Sincerely,


    Ron

    Ron Jacob, Strategic Planner,
    Corporate Properties Branch
    Sustainable Development, City of Edmonton
    on behalf of

    Tim McCargar, Director, Strategic Planning
    Corporate Properties Branch
    Sustainable Development, City of Edmonton

    (780) 496 1543
    [email protected]
    Last edited by curtispenner; 08-06-2013 at 09:19 AM.

  77. #77

    Default

    Curtis, how do you feel about the low floor LRT technology being planned for the SE/W line? Do you feel the Century Park extension was a success, or do you think we could have designed the line better to create less impact on other modes of transportation?

    There's been a lot of discussion here about elevated rail similar to what's been done in Vancouver, that can be both tasteful and coexisting with our current transportation network instead of impeding it. If we're gonna spend billions, spend it right, so to say.

    What's your opinion on this? Should we move forward as planned or revisit and make sure this is the absolute best choice?
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  78. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Curtis, how do you feel about the low floor LRT technology being planned for the SE/W line? Do you feel the Century Park extension was a success, or do you think we could have designed the line better to create less impact on other modes of transportation?

    There's been a lot of discussion here about elevated rail similar to what's been done in Vancouver, that can be both tasteful and coexisting with our current transportation network instead of impeding it. If we're gonna spend billions, spend it right, so to say.

    What's your opinion on this? Should we move forward as planned or revisit and make sure this is the absolute best choice?
    I rode a low floor system in Budapest and it was very nice with a station that was unobtrusive. I think it would be a huge improvement over our current system. The interesting part would be connecting the lines together with the existing ones. None of our existing stations would work. I looked into other cold cities with this system installed and there is one in Minneapolis that they seem to really love. It is nicely integrated with a well planned bike path system that looks really well done. They even use them at -10 in January, which is definitely a testament to their effectiveness.

    Century Park is a big subject and a big project, and I'd like to discuss that in a separate post, perhaps even a separate thread if there isn't one already. Since I got going on bike paths, let me segue very briefly into them and then I'll come back to the LRT. We are building the LRT infrastructure in aim of reducing our impact on the infrastructure and environment, so having bike paths that tie into it is a very good idea.

    My experience with our bike path project has been bad. I live near Saddleback Rd where they painted bike lanes on both sides of the road, but then a month later ripped up a brand new sidewalk to put in a multi-use path, so there is now more bike lanes than car lanes on 105 St North of 23rd Avenue. Meanwhile, the sidewalks in the communities adjoining 105 St, where the new sidewalk was ripped up and replaced, are desperately in need of repair. Whoever did this Saddleback leg of our bike path system wasted a lot of our money and should be fired. Why add two more bike lanes when the existing two we had were not being used? And ripping up new sidewalk to do it? I asked Councillor Iveson for the cost of this debacle but did not hear back.

    Coming back to LRT, I love the elevated systems like in Vancouver and San Francisco but I believe they might be cost prohibitive. I think there is a place for flyovers etc. but I think sticking to the plan and building it predominantly on the ground is more achievable in terms of budget.
    Last edited by curtispenner; 08-06-2013 at 10:49 PM.

  79. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curtispenner View Post
    This lady represented herself as her own Realtor, and so when she began making claims that she bought things that were not in her contract, I held back on paying her Realtor pending resolution of these claims. I would do the same thing with any realtor if their customer was indicating that they were owed something and getting into a dispute regarding the content of the contract that their Realtor drew up. Then, I discovered this un-removable batch of lies on The Ripoff Report.

    In short, this customer is either a lier, or her realtor is totally incompetent or both. It is magnified by the fact that the customer and her realtor are one in the same.

    National Home Warranty also dismissed her claim, and for good reason.
    Mr. Penner,
    Setting aside the claims made by this one owner, how did the rest of Windermere Village go? You claim to have experience getting projects done “on budget” and “on-time”. Let’s do a little research on this project you were heavily involved in…
    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.edmontonsun.com/homes/homesandcondos/2010/05/08/13880356.html
    "We're pleased that in a market where many builders can't even tell buyers when they will start, we can tell our buyers when they will receive occupancy of their new home," said Penner, who adds the first units will be ready for occupancy in the summer of 2010, and the entire project completed by 2011.
    Excellent! So, a promise to have this project delivered in the Summer of 2010, and completed by 2011! Let’s check how that worked out. A quick visit to www.windermerevillage.ca shows me that Buildings C&D are completely full of “coming soon” markings. (One label doesn’t match the color of the legend, but perhaps one unit has been sold. If we google map the building site (http://goo.gl/maps/TZxbQ), we can see that only two of the buildings have been completed as of Google’s last satellite pass. For arguments sake, let’s say that this occurred at some point prior to Windermere Cineplex Odeon opening (http://www.allinvestnews.com/new-cin...emas-open.html) April 20, 2012. … and to be extra fair, I checked out the project with my own eyes recently. The satellite data is accurate.

    That appears to fly in the face of your quote “entire project completed by 2011”. But maybe you just mean the first two buildings are the “entire project”?
    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.edmontonsun.com/homes/homesandcondos/2010/05/08/13880356.html
    “Another Meterra advantage is that the four-building community won't be built in phases, but constructed on a continuous schedule. Penner says that uninterrupted construction allows economy of scale in negotiating trade and material contracts, reducing costs. "With Windermere Village, as with other projects we've built, we erect all four buildings all at once, which keeps costs lower because we employ the same crews continuously from beginning to end."
    Uh-oh. Looks like I can’t even give you a benefit of the doubt on that! Did changing the project to be completed in phases impact your “economy of scale” and hurt the budget?
    Furthermore, it looks like Meterra isn’t even handling the project anymore. There is a big sign on the site that says RMS is now developing the site. Sure enough, this is backed up by their website; which states that they have “purchased phase 2 Lands of Windermere Village”. http://www.rms-group.ca/current_projects.htm) Why wouldn’t your company continue to develop the project, if you are so experienced at having projects come in “under budget”? Additionally, why does your company’s website appear to be down? I’d love to compare other projects you have worked on, but simply cannot find the data.
    I suggest that it might be beneficial for someone to contact some of the owners at Windermere Village. Do you think they would say that anyone had occupancy in Summer 2011… are comfortable with the quality of work, or if they believe things were completed “under budget"?

    If all of the above is as true, as it appears… Why should any voter give you the keys to run to run a city with an approved budget of $2.8 Billion (Pg. 20 -http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/2013_Approved_Budget_Executive_Summary.pdf), when it appears that Windermere Village was out of your abilities?

    Thanks,
    YEGFreeSkier
    PS. If the above is true; remember that when you say:
    Quote Originally Posted by curtispenner View Post
    So far I'm pretty sure I am the only credible mayoralty candidate....
    It is supposed to mean this:



    Credible (Adjective)
    1. Able to be believed; convincing.
    2. Capable of persuading people that something will happen or be successful: "a credible threat".

  80. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YEGFreeSkier View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by curtispenner View Post
    This lady represented herself as her own Realtor, and so when she began making claims that she bought things that were not in her contract, I held back on paying her Realtor pending resolution of these claims. I would do the same thing with any realtor if their customer was indicating that they were owed something and getting into a dispute regarding the content of the contract that their Realtor drew up. Then, I discovered this un-removable batch of lies on The Ripoff Report.

    In short, this customer is either a lier, or her realtor is totally incompetent or both. It is magnified by the fact that the customer and her realtor are one in the same.

    National Home Warranty also dismissed her claim, and for good reason.
    Mr. Penner,
    Setting aside the claims made by this one owner, how did the rest of Windermere Village go? You claim to have experience getting projects done “on budget” and “on-time”. Let’s do a little research on this project you were heavily involved in…
    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.edmontonsun.com/homes/homesandcondos/2010/05/08/13880356.html
    "We're pleased that in a market where many builders can't even tell buyers when they will start, we can tell our buyers when they will receive occupancy of their new home," said Penner, who adds the first units will be ready for occupancy in the summer of 2010, and the entire project completed by 2011.
    Excellent! So, a promise to have this project delivered in the Summer of 2010, and completed by 2011! Let’s check how that worked out. A quick visit to www.windermerevillage.ca shows me that Buildings C&D are completely full of “coming soon” markings. (One label doesn’t match the color of the legend, but perhaps one unit has been sold. If we google map the building site (http://goo.gl/maps/TZxbQ), we can see that only two of the buildings have been completed as of Google’s last satellite pass. For arguments sake, let’s say that this occurred at some point prior to Windermere Cineplex Odeon opening (http://www.allinvestnews.com/new-cin...emas-open.html) April 20, 2012. … and to be extra fair, I checked out the project with my own eyes recently. The satellite data is accurate.

    That appears to fly in the face of your quote “entire project completed by 2011”. But maybe you just mean the first two buildings are the “entire project”?
    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.edmontonsun.com/homes/homesandcondos/2010/05/08/13880356.html
    “Another Meterra advantage is that the four-building community won't be built in phases, but constructed on a continuous schedule. Penner says that uninterrupted construction allows economy of scale in negotiating trade and material contracts, reducing costs. "With Windermere Village, as with other projects we've built, we erect all four buildings all at once, which keeps costs lower because we employ the same crews continuously from beginning to end."
    Uh-oh. Looks like I can’t even give you a benefit of the doubt on that! Did changing the project to be completed in phases impact your “economy of scale” and hurt the budget?
    Furthermore, it looks like Meterra isn’t even handling the project anymore. There is a big sign on the site that says RMS is now developing the site. Sure enough, this is backed up by their website; which states that they have “purchased phase 2 Lands of Windermere Village”. http://www.rms-group.ca/current_projects.htm) Why wouldn’t your company continue to develop the project, if you are so experienced at having projects come in “under budget”? Additionally, why does your company’s website appear to be down? I’d love to compare other projects you have worked on, but simply cannot find the data.
    I suggest that it might be beneficial for someone to contact some of the owners at Windermere Village. Do you think they would say that anyone had occupancy in Summer 2011… are comfortable with the quality of work, or if they believe things were completed “under budget"?

    If all of the above is as true, as it appears… Why should any voter give you the keys to run to run a city with an approved budget of $2.8 Billion (Pg. 20 -http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/2013_Approved_Budget_Executive_Summary.pdf), when it appears that Windermere Village was out of your abilities?

    Thanks,
    YEGFreeSkier
    PS. If the above is true; remember that when you say:
    Quote Originally Posted by curtispenner View Post
    So far I'm pretty sure I am the only credible mayoralty candidate....
    It is supposed to mean this:



    Credible (Adjective)
    1. Able to be believed; convincing.
    2. Capable of persuading people that something will happen or be successful: "a credible threat".
    As I said in the CTV News interview that started this thread, I know intimately what a cost over-run looks like. I've seen jobs go on time and on budget, and I've seen them go the other way. This one went rather dramatically over time, and accordingly over budget, due to an abrupt stop in work which resulted from our construction manager reporting a HUGE over-run which had until this time been hidden in incorrect budgets. So the mechanical budget, for example, had been progressed to 95% even though the mechanical was not 95% done, and the siding had been progressed to 85% even though it was only 60% done, etc. That this got past the quantity surveyor was very problematic, and it doesn't speak very well of the quantity surveying business. I kept the project together through the stop-work, kept the job lien free, and managed to negotiate a solution which brought the project to completion. This was hard won experience and I bring it, as well as prior success in managing five prior projects to completion on time, to the table on the #yegarena.

    Construction can be a very shady business and there is a lot of opportunity to commit acts of fraud. I once personally caught a project manager attempting to force through a contract for a set of stairs to be cast in concrete for $50,000 in lieu of metal stairs which had already been approved by the engineer and which cost only $12,000.

    Getting burned on this project taught be some very very valuable lessons and gave me some very intimate insights into the construction and construction management business and more specifically it gave me a very good lesson on how costs can be hidden. This experience will be invaluable to Edmontonians. With the benefit of hindsight, the issues we ended up having on this job could have been head off through better crafting of our contracts, both with the construction manager and with the trades and subtrades, and through extensive use of "exclusions and inclusions" clauses with delay penalties and performance bonuses. Importantly, I learned that it is wholly insufficient to place trust in your construction manager and quantity surveyor regarding verification of progress billings. Though it may be their exclusive job to advise on how much has been built vs how much has been billed, their processes are predominantly designed to benefit themselves and the lender, and not to benefit the one paying for the job.

    My construction experiences, especially this last one, will benefit Edmonton in constructing the new arena.

    With respect to quality, there is an old saying in construction that you get what you pay for. This is very much the case. This project was exceptionally well built and will stand the test of time without special assessments. The homebuyer only sees the paint and finishings, but it is what is underneath these things that really matters. Unfortunately most people do not know this and so they have taken to buying on price alone on the basis that what they see looks about the same in the $120,000 property and the $180,000 property with the same square footage. Most of the home building industry has fallen prey to delivering what the buyer is demanding, which is the lowest possible price. In homebuilding in particular, very low price can have very high costs. But this is definitely for another discussion.

    Because we were badly burned on doing Phase 1 of Windermere Village, we assessed our position and decided to sell the Phase 2 lands to reimburse our Phase 2 buyers, rather than push forward in a condominium market that demands low price but doesn't understand quality. You will note that unlike Bellavera Green, our Phase 2 buyers were reimbursed in full and the project is being completed. Phase 2 is being done as a apartment buildings, however, which allows RMS to use the incredibly low CMHC financing rates which are exclusively available to apartment developments. This is happening all over Edmonton. I'm sure we will end up with an oversupply of apartment inventory at some point as a result. But again this is a subject for a separate thread.

    For anyone interested in interviewing our owners, you should attend the AGM. It will be in September so this will be good timing with respect to the election. I'll round up a specific date and time and let you all know. I have nothing to hide with respect to my construction experience and the experiences of our buyers. In fact quite the opposite. For anyone that does any homework on me, they'll see that my father Al Penner has worked tirelessly over the last six years in assisting the residents of Penhorwood in Ft. MacMurray to sue everyone that was involved in conveying those titles to buyers. I ran the social media campaign surrounding the initial news of the collapse and evacuation. It was my own family that did the investigations which resulted in Penhorwood being condemned. My father was warning building inspectors and fire marshals and City officials and bankers and conveyancing lawyers and everyone else under the sun that Penhorwood was not fit to live in for years and years and was sued for it. He spent thousands of thousands of dollars defending a defamation action, won, and is now tirelessly volunteering to help those buyers, as I tirelessly volunteer to help Edmontonians keep their municipal reserves, despite a lot of name calling.

    My father and I are men of the people and have worked tirelessly to help home buyers and to help our communities.
    Last edited by curtispenner; 19-06-2013 at 12:17 AM.

  81. #81

    Default

    “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

    - Theodore Roosevelt

  82. #82

    Default

    I just want to touch on the Windermere Village project again. What do you think of this project? Would you consider it complete and a success? There seems to be many owners who are dissatisfied in the 2 windermere village buildings. Items include unfinished walls and poor workmanship, slow response time and poor service. Some owners state they waited months for certain items to be fixed in their suites. this of course can be attributed to the property management company but overall follow up service from when the buildings were built were largely neglected. This isnt to say the building isnt structurally built well. I've view the complex and actually think the foundation and underground parking is built better than most other condos but truth of the matter is, there are items of concern in terms of finishing and service that are resulting in many owners dissatisifed and wanting out of this project (10 listings on mls currently). There's no fitness or games room as promised. Owners will eventually have to pay themselves to finish any unfinished contruction which although may not lead to special assessments but a hugh increase in condo fees for sure. This project appears largely abandoned when things started going south and now with phase 2 sold to another developer who's going to build rentals, this project a far cry from what was initially promised to buyers. Given the mayor's chair, if a mishap like this were to happen to major construction and roadways, the effects would disastrous to Edmonton

  83. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dean View Post
    I just want to touch on the Windermere Village project again. What do you think of this project? Would you consider it complete and a success? There seems to be many owners who are dissatisfied in the 2 windermere village buildings. Items include unfinished walls and poor workmanship, slow response time and poor service. Some owners state they waited months for certain items to be fixed in their suites. this of course can be attributed to the property management company but overall follow up service from when the buildings were built were largely neglected.
    No it is not complete. We have an incredibly good handy-man addressing settling cracks and dapping trim in units, and doing paint touch-ups in areas where people scuffed their own walls but are claiming it was a construction deficiency, etc. We tend to just paint these without argument because we like happy buyers. We are only just coming up on our 1-year mark on the 2nd building, which is when we advised our last trip in would be. I understand that many people would love us to be finished earlier, but there is no way to speed up a building's settling process, and we have a right and responsibility to address these items in an efficient manner.

    There are some outstanding common area issues which we're still waiting on, such as asphalt in a few spots, & aluminum elevator surrounds. Common area paint is not our responsibility. We cut a cheque to the condominium corporation for the cost of a full one-coat repaint, in that it seemed to make sense that they could leverage the re-paint to cover move-in bumps and scratches at a time that best suited them. I feel bad about the elevator surrounds because it looks bad without them being complete. Unfortunately we are at the mercy of our service providers on these issues in that they are now small jobs and not "jump and do it now" items for these trades. But they are being addressed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dean View Post
    This isnt to say the building isnt structurally built well. I've view the complex and actually think the foundation and underground parking is built better than most other condos but truth of the matter is, there are items of concern in terms of finishing and service that are resulting in many owners dissatisifed and wanting out of this project (10 listings on mls currently).
    There are no unfinished construction issues for which there will be any special assessments. In fact it was built specifically to avoid special assessments for owners in the future. A prime example of where we went dramatically above and beyond the abysmally low minimum spec was on balconies. Here is a video I did of our balcony water-proofing and water deflection system back in 2011:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFZkX...yer_detailpage

    You mentioned you had been in the underground parkade. I'm sure you'll have noticed how dry it is down there. We have very wet clay in Edmonton and our building code only calls for damp-proofing of parkade walls. Damp-proofing is basically a petrolium based paint that doesn't really do anything. So most projects have water leaking through their walls in perpetuity.

    Our parkade will not ever leak, because we torched a rubber membrane onto every concrete surface:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNq_z...yer_detailpage

    With respect to the MLS listings, it is an unfortunate fact that we began pre-selling Windermere Village in 2007 at the height of the boom. Many of our pre-sale buyers are dissatisfied because they are under water relative to their original purchase price. So are we. We bought the Windermere Village lands for $1.5M/acre and just sold the Phase 2 lands for $1M/acre.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dean View Post
    There's no fitness or games room as promised. Owners will eventually have to pay themselves to finish any unfinished contruction which although may not lead to special assessments but a hugh increase in condo fees for sure.
    The fitness room has been finished and delivered for months. Anyone can look in the window and see that. We left it locked so that the weights wouldn't disappear and turned the keys over to the property manager. Opening it up is their issue. The future games room is currently our site office and will remain so until we are ready to leave, under the terms of our contracts. The condo corporation has had to pay for no unfinished construction, and condominium fees have not increased a cent since we turned the buildings over, save to pay for a common internet connection which was voted on and passed at the AGM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dean View Post
    This project appears largely abandoned when things started going south and now with phase 2 sold to another developer who's going to build rentals, this project a far cry from what was initially promised to buyers.
    It would have appeared largely abandoned if we had not sold Phase 2 to another developer, as we would have waited for the condominium market to improve before building anything. As I said earlier, we are not interested in building substandard units in order to sell them dirt cheap. Neither is Jayman, by the way, and I applaud them for sticking to their guns on maintaining a quality project in the Ion just down the street.

    The court yard can not be developed until the buildings to the north are complete, as it is needed as a lay-down area and for deliveries. In order to move the court-yard forward, therefore, we needed something developed on the north portion of the site. We circulated drawings of Phase 2 and a revised courtyard with more large trees on request of the Condominium Board, on the basis that this was how we could deliver the courtyard in a meaningful timeframe. We obtained written support of 84% of the unit factors in Windermere Village.





    Unlike Century Park, which started at the same time as Windermere Village and is currently languishing with no common amenities, we are building the common amenities as promised. The fact that the new buildings will be rentals is completely irrelevant. The notion that renters decrease property values is discriminatory and wrong, both ethically and factually. Renters make better neighbours than many owners, in that if a renter causes a problem they can be evicted, whereas you are stuck with an owner. I can say from personal experience that nearly every "bad neighbour" type issue I have ever encountered in my countless months on condominium boards have been with owners - either live in owners, or owners who "self manage" their units and bring in bad tenants without doing any due diligence.

    On the topic of renters, the existing two Windermere Village buildings are half owner occupied, and half rental. Most owner occupants don't even know it because renters are usually more courteous than owners. Most projects I have completed were done as half rental and half owner occupied. So while I was putting a shovel in the ground in 2009 and delivering new rental product to the Edmonton marketplace, the City of Edmonton was busy telling you that there was no way to build affordable housing except for them to steal your parks and sell them to developers. That is hogwash and Windermere Village is the proof!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dean View Post
    Given the mayor's chair, if a mishap like this were to happen to major construction and roadways, the effects would disastrous to Edmonton
    The City makes much larger mishaps all the time on major construction and roadways, and you are right, the results are quite disastrous on the bottom line. The 23rd Avenue Interchange came in over 200% of budget, and contracts were awarded in 2009 during a recession when the major trades knew they had no new work on the horizon. The City could easily have re-tendered and saved $100M on the final bill. Windermere Village came in at 12% over our $21,000,000 budget (so about $2.5M), all of which came to light over a six month process with our construction manager, and during which construction halted because the bank stopped making progress payments. We were also forced to sell units for much less than we forecast in 2007, so the combination really shot the pro-forma.

    I am not perfect. I make mistakes. I made many new ones here, while implementing fixes on errors I had made previously. As mayor I will bring my construction experience, which by now is very extensive and spans direct experience on sites to direct experience auditing cost consultant reports and construction management contracts. My experience includes jobs that have come in on time and on budget and jobs which have not. I learned much more from the ones that have not. In me you will have someone who has personal experience with ferreting out and discovering some very mischievous methods in which costs can be hidden....and someone who is able to bring even troubled projects to the finish line.

    But broadly, the mayor's chair is about much more than construction projects. The job of the mayor is to listen to the City's citizens and represent their interests as their servant. We have lost the element of service in our elected officials, from National politics all the way down to local. The sooner we reclaim an ethic of service in our elected servants, the sooner we will start bringing in balanced budgets and policies which serve the people instead of someone else. There has been lots of "serving someone else" in council recently and unless it stops we will end up both morally and financially bankrupt. I believe that we must implement change from the bottom up. Lord knows it won't start at the top.
    Last edited by curtispenner; 29-06-2013 at 05:07 PM.

  84. #84

    Default

    Looks like Curtis Penner grabbed a clue!!! He dropped out of the race

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...957/story.html

    Penner, 35, said in a post on his website that he wants to focus on fighting city plans to develop housing on vacant school sites “versus diluting my efforts through a mayoral campaign.”

  85. #85
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,393

    Default

    Not that he ever really had a chance at the mayor's chair anyway.

  86. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lobbdogg View Post
    Not that he ever really had a chance at the mayor's chair anyway.
    I think that's right. I didn't run to win the mayor's chair. I ran out of public service to raise awareness on the MR issue, which I feel we've covered reasonably well above. But here's a nice tight summary for anyone interested.

    http://www.curtispenner.ca/edmontons...and-ponzi.html

  87. #87
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,664

    Default

    He might have not raised enough money for his campaign.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  88. #88

    Default

    Guys it's pretty clear that he want to run to bring to light the issue which he feels passionate about.

    I don't share that passion.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  89. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I see an issue with your platform already. You've incorrect assumed that school sites are "parks"

    "SAVE OUR PARKS - Consult Edmontons on how they wish their Surplus School Sites dealt with and do it."

    Those aren't parks, they are school sites, they were never parks, and never intended as parks. Now the city is trying to make Edmonton stronger through infill developments like this.

    What exactly is your opposition to filling school sites (NOT PARKS) with a useful function? Live next door to it? Got confused with the word school site, thought it meant park?
    It is you who are misinformed with respect to the definition of Municipal Reserve, school building envelopes and the fact that City Policy C468 has been completely disregarded with respect to the disposition of school sites deemed "surplus". Are you aware that city administration re-defined "the word" school building envelope on behest of developers?

    Are you aware that certain neighborhoods affected by the disbursement of these "surplus" school sites will be left with available parkland far below city guidelines and densities of multi-family housing far in excess of city guidelines? Are you aware that in 2007, city council met in-camera and drafted a request to change the Municipal Act so as to allow for the violation of C468?

    Are you aware that all this was done without any citizens being made aware?

    If you believe that the disposition of these "surplus" school sites was not the result of a direct request from the development industry you are sadly misinformed.
    Last edited by KLOC; 09-11-2013 at 01:41 PM.

  90. #90
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,066

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KLOC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I see an issue with your platform already. You've incorrect assumed that school sites are "parks"

    "SAVE OUR PARKS - Consult Edmontons on how they wish their Surplus School Sites dealt with and do it."

    Those aren't parks, they are school sites, they were never parks, and never intended as parks. Now the city is trying to make Edmonton stronger through infill developments like this.

    What exactly is your opposition to filling school sites (NOT PARKS) with a useful function? Live next door to it? Got confused with the word school site, thought it meant park?
    It is you who are misinformed with respect to the definition of Municipal Reserve, school building envelopes and the fact that City Policy C468 has been completely disregarded with respect to the disposition of school sites deemed "surplus". Are you aware that city administration re-defined "the word" school building envelope on behest of developers?

    Are you aware that certain neighborhoods affected by the disbursement of these "surplus" school sites will be left with available parkland far below city guidelines and densities of multi-family housing far in excess of city guidelines? Are you aware that in 2007, city council met in-camera and drafted a request to change the Municipal Act so as to allow for the violation of C468?

    Are you aware that all this was done without any citizens being made aware?

    If you believe that the disposition of these "surplus" school sites was not the result of a direct request from the development industry you are sadly misinformed.
    although to be fair to the development industry it should be noted that those sites were taken/gifted for the construction of schools and the industry received no compensation for them despite paying for their servicing as well as giving them up. and they are surplus sites now because the schools they were taken for we're never built.

    so if there has been recent consultation with the development community it has been as much as anything else to determine a mechanism to provide cash to the school boards for their disposition and the creation of tax-paying infill development for the city. discussions on how to do this have been ongoing for at least 15 years that i have been aware of and many of them have been very public and open to the public and in some cases driven by the public. and requesting changes to municipal regulations is also something that happens all the time... you make it sound like they were asking permission to rob banks and credit unions or poison someone's well.
    Last edited by kcantor; 10-11-2013 at 12:13 AM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  91. #91
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,373

    Default

    Could an argument be made that those sites that were taken/gifted for the construction of schools were actually paid for by the consumers that bought the rest of the land that surrounds them? Unless the developer went bankrupt they clearly had to have been able to profit from development of those lands. In essence the community that surrounds these "excess" sites paid for those properties to be a school site and should be the ones to benefit. If it is not going to be a school perhaps the residents would prefer that the site remained vacant as they may see that as their greatest benefit of these sites.

  92. #92
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,066

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    Could an argument be made that those sites that were taken/gifted for the construction of schools were actually paid for by the consumers that bought the rest of the land that surrounds them? Unless the developer went bankrupt they clearly had to have been able to profit from development of those lands. In essence the community that surrounds these "excess" sites paid for those properties to be a school site and should be the ones to benefit. If it is not going to be a school perhaps the residents would prefer that the site remained vacant as they may see that as their greatest benefit of these sites.
    if it was taken/gifted from/by the immediate neighborhood you could certainly make that argument. it falls down when you recognize they came from larger tracts and were determined at the area structure plan stage, not the neighborhood structure plan stage of the development process - ergo the value of the benefit needs to be determined on a wider basis (ie leave it as a park for local benefit or use the proceeds for a broader community benefit). it may even fall down further when you try and factor in the current ownership being the school board, not the city or the area or the neighborhood. how much if the proceeds should be directed to them? and if they ultimately drive benefits from sales proceeds, should they lay taxes on vacant land so their should be some incentive to determine the fate if those lands sooner rather than later? in that sense i suppose our school boards have been Mia's ultimate sprawl developers. like most things the right answers probably aren't black and white and probably aren't universally applicable either.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  93. #93
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,544

    Default

    https://twitter.com/duncankinney/sta...89123831320577

    Duncan Kinney ‏@duncankinney
    Curtis Penner thrown out of council chambers after a rant comparing a program to put housing on school sites with the Holocaust. #yegcc
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  94. #94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    https://twitter.com/duncankinney/sta...89123831320577

    Duncan Kinney ‏@duncankinney
    Curtis Penner thrown out of council chambers after a rant comparing a program to put housing on school sites with the Holocaust. #yegcc
    HAHAHA Thanks for the morning coffee spit.

    Curtis is all for new developments as long as he profits from them, or they are not in his backyard.

  95. #95
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,181

    Default

    Hah, you beat me to it!
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  96. #96

    Default

    Truly bizzare.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  97. #97

    Default

    Yes I'm certainly passionate! The point I was making was that continuing a moral wrong after the impedes for that wrong is missing is inexcusable. Those that said "I was just doing my job" and who stopped firing on innocent people actually made it through the Nuremberg trials...like it or not.

    Those that continued firing on innocents like blank automatons had lost their moral compass...and they were taken to task at Nuremberg for that.

    Our prior council had lost their way...they continued an immoral program that Mandel started, because they had already voted "yes" once...and so they continued to do so.

    Mandel is gone and with him the original fraudulent impetus for this program. Our new council owes it to the innocent people they are victimizing to stop and think.

    I love how I got to drag Godwin's law into it too :P

    Extreme examples are easy to grasp. And people like Duncan grab onto them because they are sensational. Well, it is a sensational topic...so we do what me must to have it discussed.

    I'll post a video of my presentation shortly

    Curtis

  98. #98

    Default

    I see no problem with council proceeding with this program that was voted on and approved with the prior council.
    These empty school lots will never have schools on them, might as well put something useful in them. No, they are not meant to be protected park spaces, as one CP alludes to frequently, but incorrectly, every time.

    Curtis has no problem filling greenfields with infill like developments though, just not in his backyard please!

  99. #99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I see no problem with council proceeding with this program that was voted on and approved with the prior council.
    These empty school lots will never have schools on them, might as well put something useful in them. No, they are not meant to be protected park spaces, as one CP alludes to frequently, but incorrectly, every time.

    Curtis has no problem filling greenfields with infill like developments though, just not in his backyard please!
    Currently the Multi-Family developments in greenfields are kicking the crap out of the City Park developments for affordability. If City Council really cares about building up and not out then they can put their money where their mouths are and stop growing the boundaries. But they don't care about that. They care about dollars.

    Ironically communities like Banff, which can't grow, actually do have affordable housing problems as a result. But what Banff does not do to mitigate their housing problems is bulldoze their recreational spaces. When you have enough density in multi-family developments, those green spaces are the only yards that people have.

  100. #100

    Default

    These aren't recreational spaces... They are sites designated as possible school sites. What's so hard to understand about this? The approved uses for these lands aren't limited to schools either, and in fact, the uses the city is proposing is within the approved zoning.

    You're going to go with Banff as an example? Poor choice... and too bad the rest of what you write is fictional, not fact.

    The real story here is that you seem to have some false belief that those 'school sites' were 'recreational sites'. They are not.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •